As I understood both Adapter and Proxy patterns make two distinct/different classes/objects compatible with each for communication. And both of them are Structural patterns. I am getting that both of them are pretty much similar with each other.
Can some one explain what exactly make(s) them different?
EDIT:
I went through this question. But I'd rather like to have a close comparison between Adapter and Proxy.
Adapter:
It allows two unrelated interfaces to work together through the different objects, possibly playing same role.
It modifies original interface.
UML diagram:
You can find more details about this pattern with working code example in this SE post:
Difference between Bridge pattern and Adapter pattern
Proxy:
Proxy provide a surrogate or place holder for another object to control access to it.
UML diagram:
There are common situations in which the Proxy pattern is applicable.
A virtual proxy is a place holder for "expensive to create" objects. The real object is only created when a client first requests/accesses the object.
A remote proxy provides a local representative for an object that resides in a different address space. This is what the "stub" code in RPC and CORBA provides.
A protective proxy controls access to a sensitive master object. The "surrogate" object checks that the caller has the access permissions required prior to forwarding the request.
A smart Proxy provides sophisticated access to certain objects such as tracking the number of references to an object and denying access if a certain number is reached, as well as loading an object from database into memory on demand
For working code, have a look at tutorialspoint article on Proxy.
Key differences:
Adapter provides a different interface to its subject. Proxy provides the same interface
Adapter is meant to change the interface of an existing object
You can find more details about these patterns in sourcemaking articles of proxy and adapter articles.
Other useful articles: proxy by dzone
From here:
Adapter provides a different interface to its subject. Proxy provides the same interface.
You might think of an Adapter as something that should make one thing fit to another that is incompatible if connected directly. When you travel abroad, for example, and need an electrical outlet adapter.
Now a Proxy is an object of the same interface, and possibly the same base class (or a subclass). It only "pretends" to be (and behaves like) the actual object, but instead forwards the actual behavior (calculations, processing, data access, etc.) to an underlying, referenced object.
Extrapolating to the electrical analogy, it would be OK that the use of an adapter is visible to the client - that is, the client "knows" an adapter is being used - while the use of a proxy might more often be hidden, or "transparent" - the client thinks an actual object is being used, but it is only a proxy.
In practice the concepts wrapper, adapter and proxy are so closely related that the terms are used interchangeably.
As the name suggests, a wrapper is literally something that wraps around another object or function. e.g. a function that calls another function, or an object that manages the lifecycle of another object and forwards requests and responses.
An adapter literally adapts the contract. That commonly refers to changing the interface of an object, or changing a method signature. And in both cases that can only be accomplished by wrapping it with a different object or function.
The word proxy is used for exactly the same thing. However, some sources will use it more explicitly to refer to an adapter to access a remote resource. Basically, that means that local calls will be forwarded to a remote object. And it may appear natural to define a common interface which can then be shared/reused both locally and remotely for those objects.
Note: The latter interpretation of the proxy pattern isn't really a thing any more. This approach made sense in a time where technologies like CORBA were hot. If you have a remote service to access, it makes more sense to clearly define Request, Response and Context objects, and reach for technologies like OpenAPI or XSD.
Difference between Adapter pattern and Proxy Pattern
ADAPTER PATTERN
Indian mobile charger (CLIENT) does not fit in USA switch board (SERVER).
You need to use adapter so that Indian mobile charger (CLIENT) can fit in USA switch board (SERVER).
From point 2, you can understand that the CLIENT contacts adapter directly. Then adapter contacts server.
PROXY PATTERN
In adapter pattern client directly contacts adapter. It does not contact server.
In proxy pattern, proxy and server implements the same interface. Client would call the same interface.
UNDERSTANDING THROUGH CODE
class client{
public void main(){
//proxy pattern
IServer iserver = new proxy();
iserver.invoke();
//adapter pattern
IAdapter iadapter = new adapter();
iserver.iadapter();
}
}
class server implements IServer{
public void invoke(){}
}
class proxy implments IServer{
public void invoke(){}
}
class adapter implements IAdapter{
public void invoke(){}
}
Reference: Difference between Adapter pattern and Proxy Pattern
Related
In OOP, should a Facade be an object or just a class? Which is better?
Most of the examples in Wikipedia creates Facade as an object which should be instantiated before use.
CarFacade cf = new CarFacade();
cf.start();
Can it be designed to be like this instead?
CarFacade.start();
UPDATE
Can a Facade facilitate a singleton?
A facade
represents a high level API for a complex subsystem (module).
reduces client code dependencies.
This means that your client code only uses the facade and does
not have a lot of dependencies to classes behind that facade.
It is better to use an instance of an interface, because
you can replace it for tests. E.g. mock the subsystem the facade represents.
you can replace it at runtime.
When you use a static methods, your client code is bound to that method implementations at compile-time. This is usually the opposite of the open/close principle.
I said "usually the opposite", because there are examples when static methods are used, but the system is still open for extension. E.g.
ServiceLoader
The static load methods only scan the classpath and lookup service implementations. Thus adding classes and META-INF/services descriptions to the classpath will add other available services without changing the ServiceLoader's code.
Spring's AuthenticationFacade for example uses a ThreadLocal internally. This makes it possible to replace the behavior of the AuthenticationFacade. Thus it is open for extension too.
Finally I think it is better to use an instance and interface like I would use for most of the other classes.
It's two fold. You can use it as a static method. Say for instance in spring security I use AuthenticationFacade to access currently logged in user Principal details like so. AuthenticationFacade.getName()
There are other instances, in which mostly people create an instance of Facade and use it. In my opinion neither approach is superior over the other. Rather it depends on your context.
Finally Facade can use Singleton pattern to make sure that it creates only one instance and provides a global point of access to it.
This question is highly subjective. The only reason I am responding is because I reviewed some of my own code and found where I had written a Façade in one application as a singleton and written almost the same Façade in a different application requiring an instance. I'm going to discuss why I chose each of those routes in their respective applications so that I can evaluate if I made the correct choice.
A façade vs the open/close principle is already explained by #Rene Link. In my personal experience, you have to think of it this way: Does the object hold the state of itself?
Let's say I have a façade that wraps the Azure Storage API for .NET (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/common/storage-samples-dotnet)
This facade holds information about how to authenticate against the storage API so that it the client can do something like this:
Azure.Authenticate(username, password);
Azure.CreateFile("My New Text File", "\\FILELOCATION");
As you can see in this example, I have not created an instance and i'm using static methods, therefore following the singleton pattern. While this makes for code that is more concise, I now have an issue if I need to authenticate to a given path with a different credential than the one already provided, I would have to do something like this:
Azure.Authenticate(username, password)
Azure.CreateFile("My New Text File", "\\FILELOCATION");
Azure.Authenticate(username2, password2);
Azure.CreateFile("My Restrictied Text File", "\\RESTRTICTEDFILELOCATION");
While this would work, it can be hard to determine why authentication failed when I call Azure.ReadFile, as I have no idea what username and password may have been passed into the singleton from thread4 on form2 (which is no where to found) This is a prime example of where you should be using an instance. It would make much more since to do something like this:
Using (AzureFacade myAzure = Azure.Authenticate(username, password))
{
Azure.CreateFile("My New Text File", "\\FILELOCATION"); // I will always know the username and password.
}
With that said, what happens if the developer needs to create a file in Azure in a method that has no idea what the username and password to Azure may be. A good example of this would be an application that periodically connects to Azure and performs some multi-threaded tasks. In said application, the user setups a connection string to azure and all mulit-threaded tasks are performed using that connection string. Therefore, there is no need to create an instance for each thread (as the state of the object will always be the same) However, in order to maintain thread safety, you don't want to share the same instance across all the threads. This is where a singleton, thread-safe pattern may come into play. (Spring's AuthenticationFacade according to #Rene Link) So that I could do something like this (psudocode)
Thread[] allTask = // Create 5 threads
Azure.Authenticate(username, password) // Authenticate for all 5 threads.
allTask.start(myfunction)
void myFunction()
{
Azure.CreateFile("x");
}
Therefore, the choice between an instance of a façade v. a singleton façade is completely dependent on the intended application of the facade, however both can definitely exist.
I saw some discussions in SO like this one saying there's no such thing as events in WCF.
On the other hand, I was following this tutorial and got to the 'events' section.
Is the code in the tutorial considered a bad practice?
This is not bad practice but those events will be used (consumed) on server (service) side host-process only (when service class/contract interface accessible directly). Standard WCF-clients don't know about those events which are not reflected in auto-generated client proxies.
But you can use service contract interface with events to constrain custom client proxies (aka service/server agents) if raw interface definition is accessible on client.
I have a WCF service application (actually, it uses WCF Web API preview 5) that intercepts each request and extracts several header values passed from the client. The idea is that the 'interceptor' will extract these values and setup a ClientContext object that is then globally available within the application for the duration of the request. The server is stateless, so the context is per-call.
My problem is that the application uses IoC (Unity) for dependency injection so there is no use of singleton's, etc. Any class that needs to use the context receives it via DI.
So, how do I 'dynamically' create a new context object for each request and make sure that it is used by the container for the duration of that request? I also need to be sure that it is completely thread-safe in that each request is truly using the correct instance.
UPDATE
So I realize as I look into the suggestions below that part of my problem is encapsulation. The idea is that the interface used for the context (IClientContext) contains only read-only properties so that the rest of the application code doesn't have the ability to make changes. (And in a team development environment, if the code allows it, someone will inevitably do it.)
As a result, in my message handler that intercepts the request, I can get an instance of the type implementing the interface from the container but I can't make use of it. I still want to only expose a read-only interface to all other code but need a way to set the property values. Any ideas?
I'm considering implementing two interfaces, one that provides read-only access and one that allows me to initialize the instance. Or casting the resolved object to a type that allows me to set the values. Unfortunately, this isn't fool-proof either but unless someone has a better idea, it might be the best I can do.
Read Andrew Oakley's Blog on WCF specific lifetime managers. He creates a UnityOperationContextLifetimeManager:
we came up with the idea to build a Unity lifetime manager tied to
WCF's OperationContext. That way, our container objects would live
only for the lifetime of the request...
Configure your context class with that lifetime manager and then just resolve it. It should give you an "operation singleton".
Sounds like you need a Unity LifetimeManager. See this SO question or this MSDN article.
I have been trying to get up to speed on Named Pipes this week. The task I am trying to solve with them is that I have an existing windows service that is acting as a device driver that funnels data from an external device into a database. Now I have to modify this service and add an optional user front end (on the same machine, using a form of IPC) that can monitor the data as it passes between the device and the DB as well as send some commands back to the service.
My initial ideas for the IPC were either named pipes or memory mapped files. So far I have been working through the named pipe idea using WCF Tutorial Basic Interprocess Communication . My idea is to set the Windows service up with an additional thread that implements the WCF NamedPipe Service and use that as a conduit to the internals of my driver.
I have the sample code working, however I can not get my head around 2 issues that I am hoping that someone here can help me with:
In the tutorial the ServiceHost is instantiated with a typeof(StringReverser) rather than by referencing a concrete class. Thus there seems to be no mechanism for the Server to interact with the service itself (between the host.Open() and host.Close() lines). Is it possible to create a link between and pass information between the server and the class that actually implements the service? If so, how?
If I run a single instance of the server and then run multiple instance of the clients, it seems that each client gets a separate instance of the service class. I tried adding some state information to the class implementing the service and it was only retained within the instance of the named pipe. This is possibly related to the first question, but is there anyway to force the named pipes to use the same instance of the class that is implementing the service?
Finally, any thoughts on MMF vs Named Pipes?
Edit - About the solution
As per Tomasr's answer the solution lies in using the correct constructor in order to supply a concrete singleton class that implements the service (ServiceHost Constructor (Object, Uri[])). What I did not appreciate at the time was his reference to ensuring the service class was thread safe. Naively just changing the constructor caused a crash in the server, and that ultimately lead me down the path of understanding InstanceContextMode from this blog entry Instancecontextmode And Concurrencymode. Setting the correct context nicely finished off the solution.
For (1) and (2) the answer is simple: You can ask WCF to use a singleton instance of your service to handle all requests. Mostly all you need to do is use the alternate ServiceHost constructor that takes an Object instance instead of a type.
Notice, however, that you'll be responsible for making your service class thread safe.
As for 3, it really depends a lot on what you need to do, your performance needs, how many clients you expect at the same time, the amount of data you'll be moving and for how long it needs to be available, etc.
As the title implies I am trying to get an understanding of why in WCF sometimes people choose to "generate proxies" vs using a ChannelFactory to manually create new channel instances. I have seen examples of each, but haven't really found any explanations of WHY you would go for one vs the other.
To be honest I have only ever worked with channels and the ChannelFactory<T> from code I have inherited, ie:
IChannelFactory<IDuplexSessionChannel> channelFactory =
binding.BuildChannelFactory<IDuplexSessionChannel>();
_duplexSessionChannel = channelFactory.CreateChannel(endpointAddress);
So why would I "generate a proxy"? What are the benefits and drawbacks?
The main difference is this:
generating a proxy only requires you to know the URL where the service resides. By generating the proxy, everything else (the service contract and the data contracts involved) will be determined by inspecting the metadata of the service
in order to directly create a ChannelFactory<T>, you must have direct access to the assembly that contains that service contract T for which you're generating a channel factory. This only ever works if you basically control both ends of the channel and you can share the assembly that contains those service contracts. Typically, with a third-party service, this won't be the case - with your own services, yes.
The second important point is this:
creating a generated proxy basically does the two steps that you would do - create a ChannelFactory<T>, and from that, create the actual channel - in a single constructor. You have no control over these two steps.
doing your own Channel creation is beneficial, since the creation of the ChannelFactory<T> is the expensive step - so yo could cache your channel factory instance somewhere. Creating and re-creating the actual channel from the factory is much less involved step which you can do more frequently
So if you do control both ends of the communication, service and client, you do have the option to share the service contracts in a separate assembly, and thus you have more options.
With most third-party services, you just simply don't have that option.
Using a proxy is simpler and easier to understand. You get to deal in terms of simple things - classes and methods on those classes - instead of complex, network-related things like channels.
OTOH, this is not made easier by the design flaw in WCF that prevents the same simple use of a WCF proxy that we could do with ASMX proxies:
using (var client = new MyServiceClient())
{
}
If you use this pattern with WCF, you can lose the original exception when the block is exited due to an exception. client.Dispose() can throw an exception, which will overwrite the exception originally being thrown. A more complex pattern is required.
This may help you:
When to use a proxy?
If you have a service that you know is going to be used by several applications or is generic enough to be used in several places, you’ll want to use the proxy classes.
When to use ChannelFactory?
ChannelFactory class is used to construct a channel between the client and the service without the need of a proxy. In some cases, you may have a service that is tightly bound to the client application. In such a case, you can reference the Interface DLL directly and use ChannelFactory to call your methods using that.
You could also refer following link to understand the difference between Channel Factory and Proxy class
http://ashishkhandelwal.arkutil.com/wcf/channelfactory-over-proxy-class-in-wcf/
The main advantage of the channelFactory is you can create the proxy at runtime dynamically on the fly. With SvcUtil (Add web reference in VS) you create the proxy at design time, so it's implementation is more static.