Does anyone know how to cache object on Web application start with structuremap 3? Is singleton method right approach ( o.For().Singleton().Use()), if yes is it cached?
Thanks
It depends on your needs. If your object never changes, singleton might be a good choice, but remember that the same object created at the start of your application will be used until the app is restarted. In most situations you want your cache objects to be refreshed once in a while to provide the current data. In such scenario you should use a custom structuremap lifecycle. Please take a look at http://notherdev.blogspot.com/2014/06/structuremap-time-expiring-objects-cache.html for a good example of possible implementation.
Related
The page on Service Discovery using apache curator (https://github.com/Netflix/curator/wiki/Service-Discovery) introduces the following concepts:
The main abstraction class is ServiceProvider. It encapsulates the discovery service for a particular named service along with a provider strategy. A provider strategy is a scheme for selecting one instance from a set of instances for a given service. There are three bundled strategies: Round Robin, Random and Sticky (always selects the same one). ServiceProviders are allocated by using a ServiceProviderBuilder.
Each of the above query methods calls ZooKeeper directly. If you need more than occasional querying of services you can use the ServiceCache. It caches in memory the list of instances for a particular service. It uses a Watcher to keep the list up to date. You allocate a ServiceCache via the builder returned by ServiceDiscovery.serviceCacheBuilder().
I can see how to use the Provider strategies with a ServiceProviderBuilder, but there's no equivalent method on the ServiceCacheBuilder, and the only relevant method available on the ServiceCache class itself is getInstances(), which gets all instances.
How can I use a provider strategy with a ServiceCache?
#simonalexander2005 I was just looking in the code and it turns out that ServiceProvider internally already uses a serviceCacheBuilder. TBH - I've either forgotten about this or it got put in by another committer - I'm not sure. Anyway, I'm very sorry about the runaround here. Also, the documentation must be updated to reflect this - I'll open an issue for this today. I'm sure this be maddening to you, again sorry for this. The good news, though, is that with ServiceProvider you automatically get caching.
Frankly, the docs on this are really bad. It would be fantastic if someone could give a pull request with better docs...
Notice that ServiceCache implements InstanceProvider. Also notice that ProviderStrategy.getInstance() has as its argument InstanceProvider. Therefore, you can pass a ServiceCache instance to whichever ProviderStrategy you want to use.
I hope this helps.
I'm creating a new application in Zend Framework 3 and i have a question about a design pattern
Without entering in much details this application will have several Services, as in, will be connecting to external APIs and even in multiple databases, the workflow is also very complex, a single will action can have multiple flows depending on several external information (wich user logged in, configs, etc).
I know about dependency injections and Zend Framework 3 Service Manager, however i am worried about instanciating sereval services when the flow will actually use only a few of them in certain cases, also we will have services depending on other services aswell, for this, i was thinking about using singletons.
Is singleton really a solution here? I was looking a way to user singletons in Zend Framework 3 and haven't figured out a easy way since i can't find a way to user the Service Manager inside a service, as I can't retrive the instance of the Service Manager outside of the Factory system.
What is an easy way to implement singletons in Zend Framework 3?
Why use singletons?
You don't need to worry about too many services in your service manager since they are started only when you get them from the service manager.
Also don't use the service manager inside another class except a factory. In ZF3 it's removed from the controllers for a reason. One of them is testability. If all services are inject with a factory, you can easily write tests. Also if you read your code next year, you can easily see what dependencies are needed inside a class.
If you find there are too many services being injected inside a class which are not always needed you can:
Use the ProxyManager. This lazy loads a service but doesn't start it until a method is called.
Split the service: Move some parts from a service into a new service. e.g. You don't need to place everything in an UserService. You can also have an UserRegisterService, UserEmailService, UserAuthService and UserNotificationsService.
In stead of ZF3, you can also think about zend-expressive. Without getting into too much detail, it is a lightweight middleware framework. You can use middleware to detect what is needed for a request and route to the required action to process the request. Something like this can probably also done in ZF3 but maybe someone else can explain how to do it there.
I'm using StructureMap and I've configured ISession with HybridHttpOrLocalThreadStorage life cycle. New session is created and injected into controllers on per request basis.
Now, the question I have is about disposal. I've read number of articles presenting number of different approaches. Some people were doing it in controllers, some in repositories, some in http modules and others did it in Application_EndRequest() handler. Critique ranged from SRP violations to 'the one creating an object should be responsible for its disposal' to name a few.
So the bottom line is that:
common approach was to manually dispose these sessions - why? I have already configured my container to manage particular object's life cycle. Shouldn't it (i.e. IoC) manage it for me?
out of options available for disposal is handling it in Application_EndRequest() "the best" way of going about it?
For example, this article explains in length one available approach but the article itself is over 2.5 years old. Perhaps new version of StructureMap makes most of that implementation obsolete?
If you are using RavenDB .net client you will be using DocumentStore and DocumentSession. Both of these object do a fair amount of work in the background; local caching to mention one thing. Just to keep things clean and efficient, each session should call session.dispose() when the work is done. documentStore.Dispose() should be called when the application ends.
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 some code that gets run a lot (for every webservice request).
The code is called from within a web service which is hosted by an application server (Websphere 7).
I noticed Websphere uses a lot of classes that presumably are singleton objects (such as BOXMLSerializer (for de/serializing business objects) or BOFactory.
I want to save on the cost of creating a new object for every web service request for example.
Is creating a singleton that lives for the duration of the uptime of the app server is the best way of dealing with this?
Does Websphere provides any help with these sorts of things?
erloewe is correct, an ordinary singleton could work. Regarding the Singleton Session Bean though -- it's part of the J2EE6 spec and is not available in WAS7 (since it is only J2EE5). It will be part of WAS8 though.
Yes, you could make an ordinary singleton. However due the way the classloader works it might not be exactly same for your applications if you had several applications requiring similar service. For that reason you probably should create a Singleton Session Bean.