I am trying to get a proof of concept running with akka.net. I am sure that I am doing something terribly wrong, but I can't figure out what it is.
I want my actors to form a graph of nodes. Later, this will be a complex graph of business objekts, but for now I want to try a simple linear structure like this:
I want to ask a node for a neighbour that is 9 steps away. I am trying to implement this in a recursive manner. I ask node #9 for a neighbour that is 9 steps away, then I ask node #8 for a neighbour that is 8 steps away and so on. Finally, this should return node #0 as an answer.
Well, my code works, but it takes more than 4 seconds to execute. Why is that?
This is my full code listing:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Linq;
using Akka;
using Akka.Actor;
namespace AkkaTest
{
class Program
{
public static Stopwatch stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var system = ActorSystem.Create("MySystem");
IActorRef[] current = new IActorRef[0];
Console.WriteLine("Initializing actors...");
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
var current1 = current;
var props = Props.Create<Obj>(() => new Obj(current1, Guid.NewGuid()));
var actorRef = system.ActorOf(props, i.ToString());
current = new[] { actorRef };
}
Console.WriteLine("actors initialized.");
FindNeighboursRequest r = new FindNeighboursRequest(9);
stopwatch.Start();
var response = current[0].Ask(r);
FindNeighboursResponse result = (FindNeighboursResponse)response.Result;
stopwatch.Stop();
foreach (var d in result.FoundNeighbours)
{
Console.WriteLine(d);
}
Console.WriteLine("Search took " + stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds + "ms.");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class FindNeighboursRequest
{
public FindNeighboursRequest(int distance)
{
this.Distance = distance;
}
public int Distance { get; private set; }
}
public class FindNeighboursResponse
{
private IActorRef[] foundNeighbours;
public FindNeighboursResponse(IEnumerable<IActorRef> descendants)
{
this.foundNeighbours = descendants.ToArray();
}
public IActorRef[] FoundNeighbours
{
get { return this.foundNeighbours; }
}
}
public class Obj : ReceiveActor
{
private Guid objGuid;
readonly List<IActorRef> neighbours = new List<IActorRef>();
public Obj(IEnumerable<IActorRef> otherObjs, Guid objGuid)
{
this.neighbours.AddRange(otherObjs);
this.objGuid = objGuid;
Receive<FindNeighboursRequest>(r => handleFindNeighbourRequest(r));
}
public Obj()
{
}
private async void handleFindNeighbourRequest (FindNeighboursRequest r)
{
if (r.Distance == 0)
{
FindNeighboursResponse response = new FindNeighboursResponse(new IActorRef[] { Self });
Sender.Tell(response, Self);
return;
}
List<FindNeighboursResponse> responses = new List<FindNeighboursResponse>();
foreach (var actorRef in neighbours)
{
FindNeighboursRequest req = new FindNeighboursRequest(r.Distance - 1);
var response2 = actorRef.Ask(req);
responses.Add((FindNeighboursResponse)response2.Result);
}
FindNeighboursResponse response3 = new FindNeighboursResponse(responses.SelectMany(rx => rx.FoundNeighbours));
Sender.Tell(response3, Self);
}
}
}
The reason of such slow behavior is the way you use Ask (an that you use it, but I'll cover this later). In your example, you're asking each neighbor in a loop, and then immediately executing response2.Result which is actively blocking current actor (and thread it resides on). So you're essentially making synchronous flow with blocking.
The easiest thing to fix that, is to collect all tasks returned from Ask and use Task.WhenAll to collect them all, without waiting for each one in a loop. Taking this example:
public class Obj : ReceiveActor
{
private readonly IActorRef[] _neighbours;
private readonly Guid _id;
public Obj(IActorRef[] neighbours, Guid id)
{
_neighbours = neighbours;
_id = id;
Receive<FindNeighboursRequest>(async r =>
{
if (r.Distance == 0) Sender.Tell(new FindNeighboursResponse(new[] {Self}));
else
{
var request = new FindNeighboursRequest(r.Distance - 1);
var replies = _neighbours.Select(neighbour => neighbour.Ask<FindNeighboursResponse>(request));
var ready = await Task.WhenAll(replies);
var responses = ready.SelectMany(x => x.FoundNeighbours);
Sender.Tell(new FindNeighboursResponse(responses.ToArray()));
}
});
}
}
This one is much faster.
NOTE: In general you shouldn't use Ask inside of an actor:
Each ask is allocating a listener inside current actor, so in general using Ask is A LOT heavier than passing messages with Tell.
When sending messages through chain of actors, cost of ask is additionally transporting message twice (one for request and one for reply) through each actor. One of the popular patterns is that, when you are sending request from A⇒B⇒C⇒D and respond from D back to A, you can reply directly D⇒A, without need of passing the message through whole chain back. Usually combination of Forward/Tell works better.
In general don't use async version of Receive if it's not necessary - at the moment, it's slower for an actor when compared to sync version.
Related
Is there is a way I can add an ihttphandler to the search index scope. I have a ihttphandler processrequest that collecting external data and then doing an updateIndex. But I wanted to see if I can trigger that when the re-index task is completed.
public class ExternalIndexerHandler : IHttpHandler
So I think you want to run your custom code on the ToPublishingPoint method, when it's done right?
Global.asax
PublishingSystemFactory.UnregisterPipe(PageInboundPipe.PipeName);
PublishingSystemFactory.RegisterPipe(PageInboundPipeCustom.PipeName, typeof(PageInboundPipeCustom));
Now the pipe...
public class PageInboundPipeCustom : PageInboundPipe
{
public override void ToPublishingPoint()
{
//Index has completed, time to do whatever now...
base.ToPublishingPoint();
var itemsToAdd = new List<WrapperObject>();
//Make sure its only running for a specific index
if (this.PipeSettings.PublishingPoint.Name == "YourIndexName")
{
var externalStuff = this.GetExternalStuff();
foreach (var s in externalStuff )
{
var item = new AppendixIndexItem(s);
var itemToAdd = new WrapperObject(item);
Debug.WriteLine(item.IdentityField);
//Metadata... if needed
//itemToAdd.SetOrAddProperty("Tags", "Educational Material");
itemsToAdd.Add(itemToAdd);
}
if (itemsToAdd.Count > 0)
{
this.PublishingPoint.AddItems(itemsToAdd);
}
}
}
public List<string> GetExternalStuff() {
var items = new List<string>();
//Callback to your external stuff?
return items;
}
}
Is that what you're looking for?
Steve McNiven-Scott
In a ASP NET Controller i have a service that returns a list of items.This service serves from the RAM the list to requesters.
The list can also be altered by a special group of users , so everytime it is altered i write the changes to disk and update my RAM from disk. (Reading my own writes this way)
From a JS client when i alter this list , the changes are written correctly on the disk , but when i forward a second request to get my list , i am served a stale list.I need to hit F5 for the client to get the right data.
I do not understand how does the RAM cache lags behind.
You can see in my service below that i have guarded the altering method with a lock.I have also tried without it to no avail.
Service
public class FileService : IADReadWrite {
private const int SIZE = 5;
private const string COMPUTER_FILE = #"computers.txt";
private List<Computer> computers = new List<Computer>();
private readonly object #filelock = new object();
private readonly Computer[] DEFAULT_COMPUTERS_LIST = new Computer[] {
new Computer(id:"W-CZC81371RS",Username:"A"),
new Computer(id:"W-CZC81371RQ",Username:"B"),
};
async Task<Computers> GetComputersAsymc() {
if (this.computers.Count == 0) {
var query = await Fetch();
this.computers = query.ToList();
}
var result = new Computers(this.computers);
return result;
}
public async Task<bool> AddComputerAsync(Computer computer) {
lock (filelock) {
if (this.computers.Any(x => x == computer)) {
return false;
}
this.computers.Add(computer);
File.WriteAllText(COMPUTER_FILE, JsonConvert.SerializeObject(this.computers, Formatting.Indented));
this.computers = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<Computer>>(File.ReadAllText(COMPUTER_FILE));
}
return true;
}
---------------------Helpers --------------------------
private async Task<IEnumerable<Computer>> Fetch() {
if (!File.Exists(COMPUTER_FILE)) {
WriteComputersToDisk();
}
using (FileStream stream = new FileStream(COMPUTER_FILE, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read)) {
var raw = await File.ReadAllTextAsync(COMPUTER_FILE);
var comp = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<Computer>>(raw);
return comp;
}
}
private void WriteComputersToDisk() {
var comps = DEFAULT_COMPUTERS_LIST;
var data = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(comps, Formatting.Indented);
File.WriteAllText(COMPUTER_FILE, data);
}
}
Controller
public class MyController:Controller
{
MyController(IADReadWrite service)
{
this.service=service;
}
IADReadWrite service;
[HttpGet]
public async Task<List<Computer>> GetAll()
{
return await service.GetComputersAsync();
}
[HttpPost]
public async Task AddComputer(Computer computer)
{
await service.AddComputerAsync(computer);
}
}
Scenario
Initial list : [0,1]
Client hits controller calling `AddComputer` {2}
I check the file , list is now: [0,1,2]
Client hits controller calling `GetComputers` -> it returns [0,1]
I hit F5 on the browser -> GetComputers gets hit again -> it returns [0,1,2]
P.S
I have not posted the Computer class since it does not matter in this scenario ( It implements IEquateable in case you are wondering if it is failing when i use the == operator.
The last 2 methods deal with the initialization of the Disk file.
Okay I will try and explain this to the best of my ability. I have searched and searched all day for a solution to this issue but can't seem to find it. The problem that I am having is that I have a list of scriptable objects that I am basically using for custom properties to create gameobjects off of. One of those properties that I need to get is a Texture2D that I turn into a sprite. Therefor, I am using UnityWebRequest in a Coroutine and am having to yield the response. After I get the response I am trying to set the variable. However even using Lambdas it seems to me that if I yield return the response before the result it will not set the variable. So every time I check the variable after the Coroutine it comes back null. If someone could enlighten me with what I am missing here that would be just great!
Here is the Scriptable Object Class I am using.
[CreateAssetMenu(fileName = "new movie",menuName = "movie")]
public class MovieTemplate : ScriptableObject
{
public string Title;
public string Description;
public string ImgURL;
public string mainURL;
public string secondaryURL;
public Sprite thumbnail;
}
Here is the call to the Coroutine
foreach (var item in nodes)
{
templates.Add(GetMovieData(item));
}
foreach (MovieTemplate movie in templates)
{
StartCoroutine(GetMovieImage(movie.ImgURL, result =>
{
movie.thumbnail = result;
}));
}
Here is the Coroutine itself
IEnumerator GetMovieImage(string url, System.Action<Sprite> result)
{
using (UnityWebRequest web = UnityWebRequestTexture.GetTexture(url))
{
yield return web.SendWebRequest();
var img = DownloadHandlerTexture.GetContent(web);
result(Sprite.Create(img, new Rect(0, 0, img.width, img.height), Vector2.zero));
}
}
From what you desribe it still seems that the texture is somehow disposed as soon as the routine finishes. My guess would be that it happens due to the using block.
I would store the original texture reference
[CreateAssetMenu(fileName = "new movie",menuName = "movie")]
public class MovieTemplate : ScriptableObject
{
public string Title;
public string Description;
public string ImgURL;
public string mainURL;
public string secondaryURL;
public Sprite thumbnail;
public Texture texture;
public void SetSprite(Sprite newSprite, Texture newTexture)
{
if(texture) Destroy(texture);
texture = newTexture;
var tex = (Texture2D) texture;
thumbnail = Sprite.Create(tex, new Rect(0, 0, tex.width, tex.height), Vector2.zero);
}
}
So you can keep track of the texture itself as well, let it not be collected by the GC but also destroy it when not needed anymore. Usually Texture2D is removed by the GC as soon as there is no reference to it anymore but Texture2D created by UnityWebRequest might behave different.
Than in the webrequest return the texture and don't use using
IEnumerator GetMovieImage(string url, System.Action<Texture> result)
{
UnityWebRequest web = UnityWebRequestTexture.GetTexture(url));
yield return web.SendWebRequest();
if(!web.error)
{
result?.Invoke(DownloadHandlerTexture.GetContent(web));
}
else
{
Debug.LogErrorFormat(this, "Download error: {0} - {1}", web.responseCode, web.error);
}
}
and finally use it like
for (int i = 0; i < templates.Count; i++)
{
int index = i;//If u use i, it will be overriden too so we make a copy of it
StartCoroutine(
GetMovieImage(
templates[index].ImgURL,
result =>
{
templates[index].SetSprite(result);
})
);
}
The problem is with this section of your code :
foreach (MovieTemplate movie in templates)
{
StartCoroutine(GetMovieImage(movie.ImgURL, result =>
{
movie.thumbnail = result;//wrong movie obj
}));
}
Here you will loose refrence to movie object(override by foreach) before the result of callback arrive .
Change it to something like this :
foreach (int i=0;i<templates.Length;i++)
{
int index= i;//If u use i, it will be overriden too so we make a copy of it
StartCoroutine(GetMovieImage(movie.ImgURL, result =>
{
templates[index].thumbnail = result;
}));
}
I have a hierarchy of actors in Akka.Net and am wondering whether I've chosen the right way to do something, or if there are better/simpler ways to achieve what I want.
My specific example is that I'm constructing a User actor in response to a user logging into the system, and when constructing this actor there are two pieces of data I need in order to complete the construction of the actor.
If this were regular .NET code I might have something like the following...
public Task<User> LoadUserAsync (string username)
{
IProfileService profileService = ...;
IMessageService messageService = ...;
var loadProfileTask = profileService.GetUserProfileAsync(username);
var loadMessagesTask = messageService.GetMessagesAsync(username);
Task.WaitAll(loadProfileTask, loadMessagesTask);
// Now construct the user from the result of both tasks
var user = new User
{
Profile = loadProfileTask.Result,
Messages = loadMessagesTask.Result
}
return Task.FromResult(user);
}
Here I use WaitAll to wait for the subordinate tasks to complete, and let them run concurrently.
My question is - if I wanted to do the same in Akka.Net, would the following be the most regular way to do this? Pictorially I've created the following...
When I create my User actor, I then construct a (temporary) User Loader Actor, whose job it is to get the full user details by calling to the Profile actor and the Messages actor. The leaf actors that get the data are as follows...
public class UserProfileLoader : ReceiveActor
{
public UserProfileLoader()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg =>
{
// Load the user profile from somewhere
var profile = new UserProfile();
// And respond to the Sender
Sender.Tell(profile);
Self.Tell(PoisonPill.Instance);
});
}
}
public class UserMessagesLoader : ReceiveActor
{
public UserMessagesLoader()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg =>
{
// Load the messages from somewhere
var messages = new List<Message>();
// And respond to the Sender
Sender.Tell(messages);
Self.Tell(PoisonPill.Instance);
});
}
}
It doesn't really matter where they get the data from for this discussion, but both simply respond to a request by returning some data.
Then I have the actor that coordinates the two data gathering actors...
public class UserLoaderActor : ReceiveActor
{
public UserLoaderActor()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg => LoadProfileAndMessages(msg));
Receive<UserProfile>(msg =>
{
_profile = msg;
FinishIfPossible();
});
Receive<List<Message>>(msg =>
{
_messages = msg;
FinishIfPossible();
});
}
private void LoadProfileAndMessages(LoadUserRequest msg)
{
_originalSender = Sender;
Context.ActorOf<UserProfileLoader>().Tell(msg);
Context.ActorOf<UserMessagesLoader>().Tell(msg);
}
private void FinishIfPossible()
{
if ((null != _messages) && (null != _profile))
{
_originalSender.Tell(new LoadUserResponse(_profile, _messages));
Self.Tell(PoisonPill.Instance);
}
}
private IActorRef _originalSender;
private UserProfile _profile;
private List<Message> _messages;
}
This just creates the two subordinate actors, sends them a message to get cracking, and then waits for both to respond before sending back all the data that's been gathered to the original requestor.
So, does this seem like a reasonable way to coordinate two disparate responses, in order to combine them? Is there an easier way to do this than craft it up myself?
Thanks in advance for your responses!
Thanks folks, so I've now simplified the actor significantly into the following, based on both Roger and Jeff's suggestions...
public class TaskBasedUserLoader : ReceiveActor
{
public TaskBasedUserLoader()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg => LoadProfileAndMessages(msg));
}
private void LoadProfileAndMessages(LoadUserRequest msg)
{
var originalSender = Sender;
var loadPreferences = this.LoadProfile(msg.UserId);
var loadMessages = this.LoadMessages(msg.UserId);
Task.WhenAll(loadPreferences, loadMessages)
.ContinueWith(t => new UserLoadedResponse(loadPreferences.Result, loadMessages.Result),
TaskContinuationOptions.AttachedToParent & TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously)
.PipeTo(originalSender);
}
private Task<UserProfile> LoadProfile(string userId)
{
return Task.FromResult(new UserProfile { UserId = userId });
}
private Task<List<Message>> LoadMessages(string userId)
{
return Task.FromResult(new List<Message>());
}
}
The LoadProfile and LoadMessages methods will ultimately call a repository to get the data, but for now I have a succinct way to do what I wanted.
Thanks again!
IMHO that's a valid process, as you fork action and then join it.
BTW you could use this.Self.GracefulStop(new TimeSpan(1)); instead of sending poison pill.
You could use a combination of Ask, WhenAll and PipeTo:
var task1 = actor1.Ask<Result1>(request1);
var task2 = actor2.Ask<Result2>(request2);
Task.WhenAll(task1, task2)
.ContinueWith(_ => new Result3(task1.Result, task2.Result))
.PipeTo(Self);
...
Receive<Result3>(msg => { ... });
I found this question difficult to express (particularly in title form), so please bear with me.
I have an application that I am continually modifying to do different things. It seems like MEF might be a good way to manage the different pieces of functionality. Broadly speaking, there are three sections of the application that form a pipeline of sorts:
Acquisition
Transformation
Expression
In it's simplest form, I can express each of these stages as an interface (IAcquisition etc). The problems start when I want to use acquisition components that provides richer data than standard. I want to design modules that use this richer data, but I can't rely on it being there.
I could, of course, add all of the data to the interface specification. I could deal with poorer data sources by throwing an exception or returning a null value. This seems a long way from ideal.
I'd prefer to do the MEF binding in three stages, such that modules are offered to the user only if they are compatible with those selected previously.
So my question: Can I specify metadata which restricts the set of available imports?
An example:
Acquision1 offers BasicData only
Acquision2 offers BasicData and AdvancedData
Transformation1 requires BasicData
Transformation2 requires BasicData and AdvancedData
Acquisition module is selected first.
If Acquisition1 is selected, don't offer Transformation 2, otherwise offer both.
Is this possible? If so, how?
Your question suggests a structure like this:
public class BasicData
{
public string Basic { get; set; } // example data
}
public class AdvancedData : BasicData
{
public string Advanced { get; set; } // example data
}
Now you have your acquisition, transformation and expression components. You want to be able to deal with different kinds of data, so they're generic:
public interface IAcquisition<out TDataKind>
{
TDataKind Acquire();
}
public interface ITransformation<TDataKind>
{
TDataKind Transform(TDataKind data);
}
public interface IExpression<in TDataKind>
{
void Express(TDataKind data);
}
And now you want to build a pipeline out of them that looks like this:
IExpression.Express(ITransformation.Transform(IAcquisition.Acquire));
So let's start building a pipeline builder:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.ComponentModel.Composition;
using System.ComponentModel.Composition.Hosting;
using System.ComponentModel.Composition.Primitives;
using System.Linq;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
// namespace ...
public static class PipelineBuidler
{
private static readonly string AcquisitionIdentity =
AttributedModelServices.GetTypeIdentity(typeof(IAcquisition<>));
private static readonly string TransformationIdentity =
AttributedModelServices.GetTypeIdentity(typeof(ITransformation<>));
private static readonly string ExpressionIdentity =
AttributedModelServices.GetTypeIdentity(typeof(IExpression<>));
public static Action BuildPipeline(ComposablePartCatalog catalog,
Func<IEnumerable<string>, int> acquisitionSelector,
Func<IEnumerable<string>, int> transformationSelector,
Func<IEnumerable<string>, int> expressionSelector)
{
var container = new CompositionContainer(catalog);
The class holds MEF type identities for your three contract interfaces. We'll need those later to identify the correct exports. Our BuildPipeline method returns an Action. That is going to be the pipeline, so we can just do pipeline(). It takes a ComposablePartCatalog and three Funcs (to select an export). That way, we can keep all the dirty work inside this class. Then we start by creating a CompositionContainer.
Now we have to build ImportDefinitions, first for the acquisition component:
var aImportDef = new ImportDefinition(def => (def.ContractName == AcquisitionIdentity), null, ImportCardinality.ZeroOrMore, true, false);
This ImportDefinition simply filters out all exports of the IAcquisition<> interface. Now we can give it to the container:
var aExports = container.GetExports(aImportDef).ToArray();
aExports now holds all IAcquisition<> exports in the catalog. So let's run the selector on this:
var selectedAExport = aExports[acquisitionSelector(aExports.Select(export => export.Metadata["Name"] as string))];
And there we have our acquisition component:
var acquisition = selectedAExport.Value;
var acquisitionDataKind = (Type)selectedAExport.Metadata["DataKind"];
Now we're going to do the same for the transformation and the expression components, but with one slight difference: The ImportDefinition is going to ensure that each component can handle the output of the previous component.
var tImportDef = new ImportDefinition(def => (def.ContractName == TransformationIdentity) && ((Type)def.Metadata["DataKind"]).IsAssignableFrom(acquisitionDataKind),
null, ImportCardinality.ZeroOrMore, true, false);
var tExports = container.GetExports(tImportDef).ToArray();
var selectedTExport = tExports[transformationSelector(tExports.Select(export => export.Metadata["Name"] as string))];
var transformation = selectedTExport.Value;
var transformationDataKind = (Type)selectedTExport.Metadata["DataKind"];
var eImportDef = new ImportDefinition(def => (def.ContractName == ExpressionIdentity) && ((Type)def.Metadata["DataKind"]).IsAssignableFrom(transformationDataKind),
null, ImportCardinality.ZeroOrMore, true, false);
var eExports = container.GetExports(eImportDef).ToArray();
var selectedEExport = eExports[expressionSelector(eExports.Select(export => export.Metadata["Name"] as string))];
var expression = selectedEExport.Value;
var expressionDataKind = (Type)selectedEExport.Metadata["DataKind"];
And now we can wire it all up in an expression tree:
var acquired = Expression.Call(Expression.Constant(acquisition), typeof(IAcquisition<>).MakeGenericType(acquisitionDataKind).GetMethod("Acquire"));
var transformed = Expression.Call(Expression.Constant(transformation), typeof(ITransformation<>).MakeGenericType(transformationDataKind).GetMethod("Transform"), acquired);
var expressed = Expression.Call(Expression.Constant(expression), typeof(IExpression<>).MakeGenericType(expressionDataKind).GetMethod("Express"), transformed);
return Expression.Lambda<Action>(expressed).Compile();
}
}
And that's it! A simple example application would look like this:
[Export(typeof(IAcquisition<>))]
[ExportMetadata("DataKind", typeof(BasicData))]
[ExportMetadata("Name", "Basic acquisition")]
public class Acquisition1 : IAcquisition<BasicData>
{
public BasicData Acquire()
{
return new BasicData { Basic = "Acquisition1" };
}
}
[Export(typeof(IAcquisition<>))]
[ExportMetadata("DataKind", typeof(AdvancedData))]
[ExportMetadata("Name", "Advanced acquisition")]
public class Acquisition2 : IAcquisition<AdvancedData>
{
public AdvancedData Acquire()
{
return new AdvancedData { Advanced = "Acquisition2A", Basic = "Acquisition2B" };
}
}
[Export(typeof(ITransformation<>))]
[ExportMetadata("DataKind", typeof(BasicData))]
[ExportMetadata("Name", "Basic transformation")]
public class Transformation1 : ITransformation<BasicData>
{
public BasicData Transform(BasicData data)
{
data.Basic += " - Transformed1";
return data;
}
}
[Export(typeof(ITransformation<>))]
[ExportMetadata("DataKind", typeof(AdvancedData))]
[ExportMetadata("Name", "Advanced transformation")]
public class Transformation2 : ITransformation<AdvancedData>
{
public AdvancedData Transform(AdvancedData data)
{
data.Basic += " - Transformed2";
data.Advanced += " - Transformed2";
return data;
}
}
[Export(typeof(IExpression<>))]
[ExportMetadata("DataKind", typeof(BasicData))]
[ExportMetadata("Name", "Basic expression")]
public class Expression1 : IExpression<BasicData>
{
public void Express(BasicData data)
{
Console.WriteLine("Expression1: {0}", data.Basic);
}
}
[Export(typeof(IExpression<>))]
[ExportMetadata("DataKind", typeof(AdvancedData))]
[ExportMetadata("Name", "Advanced expression")]
public class Expression2 : IExpression<AdvancedData>
{
public void Express(AdvancedData data)
{
Console.WriteLine("Expression2: ({0}) - ({1})", data.Basic, data.Advanced);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var pipeline = PipelineBuidler.BuildPipeline(new AssemblyCatalog(typeof(Program).Assembly), StringSelector, StringSelector, StringSelector);
pipeline();
}
static int StringSelector(IEnumerable<string> strings)
{
int i = 0;
foreach (var item in strings)
Console.WriteLine("[{0}] {1}", i++, item);
return int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
}
}