I am using the NamedScoped Ninject extension in an attempt to create object graphs that are constructed everytime a command handler is constructed by the container. In other words, I want a fresh object graph for every command that might get processed by its corresponding handler.
I have used the .DefinesNamedScope("TopLevelOrhcestrator") binding when registering my "command handlers" as they are the top level for command processing.
A type in this named scope needs to be injected with the result of a method call on a type already registered in this named scope. I thought the best way to do this would be with a ninject provider.
Inside the provider I attempt to resolve the type in hopes I can call a method on it to pass into another object I am creating within this named scope. The problem I'm having is that when I ask the IContext for the instance inside the customer provider I get an exception that says "No matching scopes are available, and the type is declared InNamedScope(TopLevelOrchestrator).
context.Kernel.Get<TypeAlreadyRegisteredInScope>().MethodThatGetsAnotherDependency()
Is it possible to get types from the container inside a Ninject provider when they are registered inside a named scope?
EDIT
I apologize if the use case seems a bit odd, I am experimenting with some ideas about how to manage my units of work and other services/managers that may need a handle to the uow to complete a business usecase. I know its common for the unit of work to be "started" and then passed into all dependencies that may need to take part in a larger process. I was thinking I'd rather let my orchestrator take a unit of work factory so that it could deterministically destroy the UOW and it would be clear who the owner of a usecase is. What would get supplied to the managers/services would be a proxy to the unit of work that would be null until a real unit of work was started by the orchestrator. That's why I was attempting to link the proxy from the already registered type in my provider. This is all very experimental at this point and was testing some ideas.
I'd be happy to hear any further thoughts.
For MethodThatGetsAnotherDependency() to be able to .Get<>() an instance that is bound .InNamedScope(...) you will need to add the Context Preservation Extension.
This is because NamedScope is adding a parameter to the request context of the binding that has .DefinesNamedScope(...). As soon as that request is over, that context and it's parameters are forgotten. Now with the ContextPreservation extension the context is kept and reused for late / factory creations (Func<>, interface factory with .ToFactory() binding...). It think it should also work with providers.
If not, just switch to a factory instead of a provider.
However i have to admit that i don't fully understand why/what you are trying to achieve. There might be simpler ways.
Related
I have searched a lot about these question, here and a lot of other places, but not getting everything I want to know!
From a WebApi project point-of-view, when are InTransientScope objects Created? In the Ninject docs it is stated that such objects are created whenever requested, but in a web api project that handles HTTP requests, the instance is created at the request start time so in this regard it is the same as InRequestScope then?
In a WebApi project, is it okay to use InTransientScope objects knowing that they will never be kept track of by Ninject? If Ninject never keeps track of Transient objects, then what is the purpose of this scope and what happens to such objects after they have been used?
If I declare an object with InRequestScope and that object doesn't implement the IDisposable interface, what happens to such object after the web request has completed? Will it be treated the same way as an InTransientScope object?
Are different scopes to be used for: WebApi controllers, Repositories(that use a InRequestScope Session that is created separately) and Application services?
There's two purposes for scopes:
Only allow one object to be created per scope
(optionally) dispose of the object once the scope ends.
As said, the disposal is optional. If it doesn't implement the IDisposable interface it's not being disposed. There's plenty of usecases for that.
The InTransientScope is the default scope - the one being used if you don't specify another one. It means that every time a type A is requested from the kernel one activation takes place and the result is returned. The activation logic is specified by the binding part that follows immediately after the Bind part (To<...>, ToMethod(...),...).
However, this is not necessarily at the time the web-request starts and the controller is instanciated. For example, you can use factories or service location (p.Ex. ResolutionRoot.Get<Foo>()) to create more objects after the controller has been created. To answer your questions in short:
When: When a request takes place or whenever your code asks for a type from Ninject either directly (IResolutionRoot.Get(..)) or through a factory. As InTransientScope objects are not being tracked they will not be disposed, however, if they are not disposable and the entire request code requests only one IFoo then practically there's is no discernible difference (apart from the slight performance hit due totracking InRequestScope()-ed objects)
As long as you don't need to make sure that instances are shared and/or disposed this is completely fine. After they are not being used anymore, they will get garbage-collected like any object you would new yourself.
When the scope ends ninject will remove the weak reference to the non-IDisposable object. The object itself will not be touched - just like when bound InTransientScope()
That depends on your specific requirements and implementation details. Generally one needs to make sure that long-scoped objects don't depend on short-scoped objects. For example, a Singleton-Service should not depend on a Request-scoped object. As a baserule, everything should be InTransientScope() unless there's a specific reason why it should not be. The reason will dictate what scope to use...
So, I have a viewmodel class in a xamarin project that I inject some dependencies into via ninject binding on app start. One of these is an IDialogService.
When my MainPage in my application changes it raises a property changed event and I rebind the implementation of the dialog service since it is tied to the MainPage.
If my viewmodel has already been created with lets say DialogServiceA and then when MainPage changes we rebind to DialogServiceB, will my viewmodel be using service A or B? I think it is using A and therefore does not display in the UI because it is tied to a MainPage that no longer exists.
So, if this is the case how can I dynamically change my dialog service but then update classes that have already been instantiated without changing everything to get the current dialog service from the container every time its used (therefore not injecting it at all really, and doing more of a servicelocator)
Also, if this approach is completely wrong, set me straight.
You're right. Re-configuration of the container does not affect already instanciated objects.
If you want to change dependencies without re-instanciating the dependent (parent ViewModel) there's a few possibilities for you:
use a factory to instanciate the service every time. Implement an Abstract Factory (Site by Mark Seeman) or use Ninject.Extensions.Factory to do so
instead of injecting a service directly, inject an adapter. The adapter then redirects the request to the currently appropriate service. To do so, either all service can be injected into the adapter, or you can use a factory as with the possibility above.
instead of inject a service directly, inject a proxy. The proxy is quite similar to the adapter, but instead of coding every method / property redirection specifically, you code a generic redirect by an interceptor. Here's a tutorial on castle dynamic proxy
At the end of the day, however, i believe you'll also need a way to manage when to change the service / which it should be. There's probably a design alternative which doesn't rely on exchanging objects in such a manner.. which would make it an easier (and thus better?) design.
Edit: i just saw that you also tagged the question as xamarin-forms. In that case it most likely won't be an option to use either a dynamic proxy nor ninject.extensions.factory (it relies on dynamic proxies, too). Why? dynamic proxy / IL emitting is not supported on all platforms, AFAIR specifically on Apple devices this can't be done.
this is my first post, and I really have tried hard to find an answer, but am drawing a blank thus far.
My implementation of IDataContractSurrogate creates surrogates for certain 'cached' objects which I maintain (this works fine). What doesn't work is that in order for this system to operate effectively, it needs to access the service instance for some properties of the instance which it is maintaining from the interaction with its client. Also, when my implementation of IDataContractSurrogate works in its 'client mode' it needs access to the properties of the client instance in a similar way. Access to the information from the client and service instance affects how I create my surrogate types (or rather SHOULD do if I can answer this question!)
My service instancing is PerSession and concurrent.
On the server side, calls to GetDataContractType and GetDeserializedObject contain a valid OperationContext.Current from which I can of course retreive the service instance. However on the client side, none of the calls yield an OperationContext.Current. We are still in an operation as I am translating the surrogate types to the data contract types after they have been sent from the server as part of its response to the client request so I would have expected one? Maybe the entire idea of using OperationContext.Current from outside of an Operation invocation is wrong?
So, moving on, and trying to fix this problem I have examined the clientRuntime/dispatchRuntime object which is available when applying my customer behaviour, however that doesn't appear to give me any form of access to the client instance, unless I have a message reference perhaps... and then calling InstanceProvider. However I don't have the message.
Another idea I had was to use IInstanceProvider myself and then maybe build up a dictionary of all the ones which are dished out... but that's no good because I don't appear to have access to any session related piece of information from within my implementation of IDataContractSurrogate to use as a dictionary key.
I had originally implemented my own serializer but thats not what I want. I'm happy with the built in serializer, and changing the objects to special surrogates is exactly what I need to do, with the added bonus that every child property comes in for inspection.
I have also looked at applying a service behavior, but that also does not appear to yield a service instance, and also does not let me set a Surrogate implementation property.
I simply do not know how to gain access to the current session/instance from within my implementation IDataContractSurrogate. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Sean
I have solved my problem. The short answer is that I implemented IClientMessageFormatter and IDispatchMessageFormatter to accomplish what I needed. Inside SerializeReply I could always access the ServiceInstance as OperationContext.Current is valid. It was more work as I had to implement my own serialization and deserialization, but works flawlessly. The only issue remaining would be that there is no way to get the client proxy which is processing the response, but so far that is not a show stopper for me.
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.
Here is the scenario. I have a WCF service, when this service is called it passes control to an instance of another class (created via Ninject). In that class I need to do some work, specifically with Entity Framework and repositories. To cut a long story short, I have the following binding declared.
Bind<IGenericProductRepository>()
.To<GenericProductRepository>()
.WithConstructorArgument( "context", new StagingDataContext());
When I want to use this repository I have the following.
using (var genericProductRepository = IoC.Resolve<IGenericProductRepository>())
The problem is, that I only get a new instance of genericProductRepository if it's a brand new request, if the method is called multiple times in the same request I get an error stating that the context (the EF context) is already disposed, this is because it seems like I am getting the same instance back that was already disposed in the using statement. To explain it another way, using the Microsoft WCF Test Client, if I invoke it the first time, the code runs fine, if I push the invoke button again (without restarting the test client, i.e. the same request) then it throws this error about it being disposed already.
I have tried to play around with the various "scopes" that come with Ninject, but clearly I am missing something.
So my basic question is, how do I get a new repository whenever it hits that line, instead of using the same one ? Help would be greatly appreciated, I'm really trying to push for my company to adopt Ninject and drop Spring.
Look at your binding again. Even without any knowledge about Ninject you should notice that the instance of your context is created exactly once at the time the binding is defined. But what you want is have a new context on every resolve. Best it is done by not using WithConstructorArgument and let Ninject create the instance. Therefore you have to define a additional binding for the type of context. If this is not possible for some reason you have to use the lazy version of WithConstructorArgument
WithConstructorArgument("context", ctx => new StagingDataContext())
Furthermore, you might want to try The WCF extension for Ninject:
https://github.com/ninject/ninject.extensions.wcf
That way you can get rid of the ServiceLocator like usage.