I have a base abstract context which has a couple hundred shared objects, and then 2 "implementation" contexts which both inherit from the base and are designed to be used by different tenants in a .net core application. A tenant object is injected into the constructor for OnConfiguring to pick up which connection string to use.
public abstract class BaseContext : DbContext
{
protected readonly AppTenant Tenant;
protected BaseContext (AppTenant tenant)
{
Tenant = tenant;
}
}
public TenantOneContext : BaseContext
{
public TenantOneContext(AppTenant tenant)
: base(tenant)
{
}
}
In startup.cs, I register the DbContexts like this:
services.AddDbContext<TenantOneContext>();
services.AddDbContext<TenantTwoContext>();
Then using the autofac container and th Multitenant package, I register tenant specific contexts like this:
IContainer container = builder.Build();
MultitenantContainer mtc = new MultitenantContainer(container.Resolve<ITenantIdentificationStrategy>(), container);
mtc.ConfigureTenant("1", config =>
{
config.RegisterType<TenantOneContext>().AsSelf().As<BaseContext>();
});
mtc.ConfigureTenant("2", config =>
{
config.RegisterType<TenantTwoContext>().AsSelf().As<BaseContext>();
});
Startup.ApplicationContainer = mtc;
return new AutofacServiceProvider(mtc);
My service layers are designed around the BaseContext being injected for reuse where possible, and then services which require specific functionality use the TenantContexts.
public BusinessService
{
private readonly BaseContext _baseContext;
public BusinessService(BaseContext context)
{
_baseContext = context;
}
}
In the above service at runtime, I get an exception "No constructors on type 'BaseContext' can be found with the constructor finder 'Autofac.Core.Activators.Reflection.DefaultConstructorFinder'". I'm not sure why this is broken....the AppTenant is definitely created as I can inject it other places successfully. I can make it work if I add an extra registration:
builder.RegisterType<TenantOneContext>().AsSelf().As<BaseContext>();
I don't understand why the above registration is required for the tenant container registrations to work. This seems broken to me; in structuremap (Saaskit) I was able to do this without adding an extra registration, and I assumed using the built in AddDbContext registrations would take care of creating a default registration for the containers to overwrite. Am I missing something here or is this possibly a bug in the multitenat functionality of autofac?
UPDATE:
Here is fully runable repo of the question: https://github.com/danjohnso/testapp
Why is line 66 of Startup.cs needed if I have lines 53/54 and lines 82-90?
As I expected your problem has nothing to do with multitenancy as such. You've implemented it almost entirely correctly, and you're right, you do not need that additional registration, and, btw, these two (below) too because you register them in tenant's scopes a bit later:
services.AddDbContext<TenantOneContext>();
services.AddDbContext<TenantTwoContext>();
So, you've made only one very small but very important mistake in TenantIdentitifcationStrategy implementation. Let's walk through how you create container - this is mainly for other people who may run into this problem as well. I'll mention only relevant parts.
First, TenantIdentitifcationStrategy gets registered in a container along with other stuff. Since there's no explicit specification of lifetime scope it is registered as InstancePerDependency() by default - but that does not really matter as you'll see. Next, "standard" IContainer gets created by autofac's buider.Build(). Next step in this process is to create MultitenantContainer, which takes an instance of ITenantIdentitifcationStrategy. This means that MultitenantContainer and its captive dependency - ITenantIdentitifcationStrategy - will be singletons regardless of how ITenantIdentitifcationStrategy is registered in container. In your case it gets resolved from that standard "root" container in order to manage its dependencies - well, this is what autofac is for anyways. Everything is fine with this approach in general, but this is where your problem actually begins. When autofac resolves this instance it does exactly what it is expected to do - injects all the dependencies into TenantIdentitifcationStrategy's constructor including IHttpContextAccessor. So, right there in the constructor you grab an instance of IHttpContext from that context accessor and store it for using in tenant resolution process - and this is a fatal mistake: there's no http request at this time, and since TenantIdentitifcationStrategy is a singleton it means that there will not ever be one for it! So, it gets null request context for the whole application lifespan. This effectively means that TenantIdentitifcationStrategy will not be able to resolve tenant identifier based on http requests - because it does not actually analyze them. Consequently, MultitenantContainer will not be able to resolve any tenant-specific services.
Now when the problem is clear, its solution is obvious and trivial - just move fetching of request context context = _httpContextAccessor.HttpContext to TryIdentifyTenant() method. It gets called in the proper context and will be able to access request context and analyze it.
PS. This digging has been highly educational for me since I had absolutely no idea about autofac's multi-tenant concept, so thank you very much for such an interesting question! :)
PPS. And one more thing: this question is just a perfect example of how important well prepared example is. You provided very good example. Without it no one would be able to figure out what the problem is since the most important part of it was not presented in the question - and sometimes you just don't know where this part actually is...
I'm using Spring-data-rest and wondering if there is a reason behind the fact that #RestController also has #ResponseBody but #RepositoryRestController has not.
All controllers in Spring Data REST using that annotation return a ResponseEntity<T> anyway, so that technically #ResponseBody is not needed.
We generally prefer ResponseEntity as return type for two reasons:
In controller methods serving REST requests, you usually want to control details of the response (headers, the status code etc.) for which ResponseEntity is exactly the type for.
Spring MVC detects ResponseEntity and thus we don't the additional annotation.
I'm not sure we can actually change that, as despite the name of the annotation, there could be implementations out there that still use view resolution. If you still think, it's a good idea, feel free to raise a ticket in our JIRA.
Can you give any good explanation what is the difference between Proxy and Decorator?
The main difference I see is that when we assume that Proxy uses composition and Decorator uses aggregation then it seems to be clear that by using multiple (one or more) Decorators you can modify/ add functionalities to pre-existing instance (decorate), whereas Proxy has own inner instance of proxied class and delegates to it adding some additional features (proxy behaviour).
The question is - Does Proxy created with aggregation is still Proxy or rather Decorator? Is it allowed (by definition in GoF patterns) to create Proxy with aggregation?
The real difference is not ownership (composition versus aggregation), but rather type-information.
A Decorator is always passed its delegatee. A Proxy might create it himself, or he might have it injected.
But a Proxy always knows the (more) specific type of the delegatee. In other words, the Proxy and its delegatee will have the same base type, but the Proxy points to some derived type. A Decorator points to its own base type. Thus, the difference is in compile-time information about the type of the delegatee.
In a dynamic language, if the delegatee is injected and happens to have the same interface, then there is no difference.
The answer to your question is "Yes".
Decorator Pattern focuses on dynamically adding functions to an object, while Proxy Pattern focuses on controlling access to an object.
EDIT:-
Relationship between a Proxy and the real subject is typically set at compile time, Proxy instantiates it in some way, whereas Decorator is assigned to the subject at runtime, knowing only subject's interface.
Here is the direct quote from the GoF (page 216).
Although decorators can have similar implementations as proxies, decorators have a different purpose. A decorator adds one or more responsibilities to an object, whereas a proxy controls access to an object.
Proxies vary in the degree to which they are implemented like a decorator. A
protection proxy might be implemented exactly like a decorator. On the other
hand, a remote proxy will not contain a direct reference to its real subject but only
an indirect reference, such as "host ID and local address on host." A virtual proxy
will start off with an indirect reference such as a file name but will eventually
obtain and use a direct reference.
Popular answers indicate that a Proxy knows the concrete type of its delegate. From this quote we can see that is not always true.
The difference between Proxy and Decorator according to the GoF is that Proxy restricts the client. Decorator does not. Proxy may restrict what a client does by controlling access to functionality; or it may restrict what a client knows by performing actions that are invisible and unknown to the client. Decorator does the opposite: it enhances what its delegate does in a way that is visible to clients.
We might say that Proxy is a black box while Decorator is a white box.
The composition relationship between wrapper and delegate is the wrong relationship to focus on when contrasting Proxy with Decorator, because composition is the feature these two patterns have in common. The relationship between wrapper and client is what differentiates these two patterns.
Decorator informs and empowers its client.
Proxy restricts and disempowers its client.
Decorator get reference for decorated object (usually through constructor) while Proxy responsible to do that by himself.
Proxy may not instantiate wrapping object at all (like this do ORMs to prevent unnecessary access to DB if object fields/getters are not used) while Decorator always hold link to actual wrapped instance.
Proxy usually used by frameworks to add security or caching/lazing and constructed by framework (not by regular developer itself).
Decorator usually used to add new behavior to old or legacy classes by developer itself based on interface rather then actual class (so it work on wide range of interface instances, Proxy is around concrete class).
Key differences:
Proxy provides the same interface. Decorator provides an enhanced interface.
Decorator and Proxy have different purposes but similar structures. Both describe how to provide a level of indirection to another object, and the implementations keep a reference to the object to which they forward requests.
Decorator can be viewed as a degenerate Composite with only one component. However, a Decorator adds additional responsibilities - it isn't intended for object aggregation.
Decorator supports recursive composition
The Decorator class declares a composition relationship to the LCD (Lowest Class Denominator) interface, and this data member is initialized in its constructor.
Use Proxy for lazy initialization, performance improvement by caching the object and controlling access to the client/caller
Sourcemaking article quotes the similarities and differences in excellent way.
Related SE questions/links:
When to Use the Decorator Pattern?
What is the exact difference between Adapter and Proxy patterns?
Proxy and Decorator differ in purpose and where they focus on the internal implementation. Proxy is for using a remote, cross process, or cross-network object as if it were a local object. Decorator is for adding new behavior to the original interface.
While both patterns are similar in structure, the bulk of the complexity of Proxy lies in ensuring proper communications with the source object. Decorator, on the other hand, focuses on the implementation of the added behavior.
Took a while to figure out this answer and what it really means. A few examples should make it more clear.
Proxy first:
public interface Authorization {
String getToken();
}
And :
// goes to the DB and gets a token for example
public class DBAuthorization implements Authorization {
#Override
public String getToken() {
return "DB-Token";
}
}
And there is a caller of this Authorization, a pretty dumb one:
class Caller {
void authenticatedUserAction(Authorization authorization) {
System.out.println("doing some action with : " + authorization.getToken());
}
}
Nothing un-usual so far, right? Obtain a token from a certain service, use that token. Now comes one more requirement to the picture, add logging: meaning log the token every time. It's simple for this case, just create a Proxy:
public class LoggingDBAuthorization implements Authorization {
private final DBAuthorization dbAuthorization = new DBAuthorization();
#Override
public String getToken() {
String token = dbAuthorization.getToken();
System.out.println("Got token : " + token);
return token;
}
}
How would we use that?
public static void main(String[] args) {
LoggingDBAuthorization loggingDBAuthorization = new LoggingDBAuthorization();
Caller caller = new Caller();
caller.authenticatedUserAction(loggingDBAuthorization);
}
Notice that LoggingDBAuthorization holds an instance of DBAuthorization. Both LoggingDBAuthorization and DBAuthorization implement Authorization.
A proxy will hold some concrete implementation (DBAuthorization) of the base interface (Authorization). In other words a Proxy knows exactly what is being proxied.
Decorator:
It starts pretty much the same as Proxy, with an interface:
public interface JobSeeker {
int interviewScore();
}
and an implementation of it:
class Newbie implements JobSeeker {
#Override
public int interviewScore() {
return 10;
}
}
And now we want to add a more experienced candidate, that adds it's interview score plus the one from another JobSeeker:
#RequiredArgsConstructor
public class TwoYearsInTheIndustry implements JobSeeker {
private final JobSeeker jobSeeker;
#Override
public int interviewScore() {
return jobSeeker.interviewScore() + 20;
}
}
Notice how I said that plus the one from another JobSeeker, not Newbie. A Decorator does not know exactly what it is decorating, it knows just the contract of that decorated instance (it knows about JobSeeker). Take note here that this is unlike a Proxy; that, in contrast, knows exactly what it is decorating.
You might question if there is actually any difference between the two design patterns in this case? What if we tried to write the Decorator as a Proxy?
public class TwoYearsInTheIndustry implements JobSeeker {
private final Newbie newbie = new Newbie();
#Override
public int interviewScore() {
return newbie.interviewScore() + 20;
}
}
This is definitely an option and highlights how close these patterns are; they are still intended for different scenarios as explained in the other answers.
A Decorator adds extra responsibility to an object, while a proxy controls access to an object, they both use composition. If your wrapper class messes with the subject, it is obviously a proxy. Let me explain by a code example in PHP:
Code Example
Given is the following CarRepository:
interface CarRepositoryInterface
{
public function getById(int $id) : Car
}
class CarRepository implements CarRepositoryInterface
{
public function getById(int $id) : Car
{
sleep(3); //... fake some heavy db call
$car = new Car;
$car->setId($id);
$car->setName("Mercedes Benz");
return $car;
}
}
CarRepository-Proxy
A Proxy is often used as lazy loading or a cache proxy:
class CarRepositoryCacheProxy implements CarRepositoryInterface
{
private $carRepository;
private function getSubject() : CarRepositoryInterface
{
if($this->carRepository == null) {
$this->carRepository = new CarRepository();
}
return $this->carRepository;
}
/**
* This method controls the access to the subject
* based on if there is cache available
*/
public function getById(int $id) : Car
{
if($this->hasCache(__METHOD__)) {
return unserialize($this->getCache(__METHOD__));
}
$response = $this->getSubject()->getById($id);
$this->writeCache(__METHOD__, serialize($response));
return $response;
}
private function hasCache(string $key) : bool
{
//... implementation
}
private function getCache(string $key) : string
{
//... implementation
}
private function writeCache(string $key, string $result) : string
{
//... implementation
}
}
CarRepository-Decorator
A Decorator can be used as long as the added behavior does not "control" the subject:
class CarRepositoryEventManagerDecorator implements CarRepositoryInterface
{
private $subject, $eventManager;
/**
* Subjects in decorators are often passed in the constructor,
* where a proxy often takes control over the invocation behavior
* somewhere else
*/
public function __construct(CarRepositoryInterface $subject, EventManager $eventManager)
{
$this->subject = $subject;
$this->eventManager = $eventManager;
}
public function getById(int $id) : Car
{
$this->eventManager->trigger("pre.getById");
//this method takes no control over the subject
$result = $this->subject->getById($id);
$this->eventManager->trigger("post.getById");
return $result;
}
}
Proxy provides the same interface to the wrapped object, Decorator provides it with an enhanced interface, and Proxy usually manages the life cycle of its service object on its own, whereas the composition of Decorators is always controlled by the client.
Let me explain the patterns first and then come to you questions.
From the class diagram and meanings, they are very similar:
Both have the same interface as its delegatee has.
Both add/enhance the behavior of its delegatee.
Both ask the delegatee to perform operations(Should not work with null delegatee).
But they have some difference:
Different intents:
Proxy enhances the behavior of delegatee(passed object) with quite different domain knowledge from its delegatee. Eg, a security proxy adds security control of the delegatee. A proxy to send remote message needs to serialize/deserialize data and has knowlege on network interfacing, but has nothing to do with how to prepare source data.
Decorator helps on the same problem domain the delegatee works on. Eg, BufferedInputStreaman(an IO decorator) works on input, which is the same problem domain(IO) as its delegatee, but it cannot perform without a delegatee which provides IO data.
Dependency is strong or not:
Decorator relies on delegate to finish the behavior, and it cannot finish the behavior without delegatee(Strong). Thus we always use aggration over composition.
Proxy can perform faked behavior even it does not need a delegatee(Weak). Eg, mockito(unit test framework) could mock/spy a behavior just with its interface. Thus we use composition to indicate there's no strong dependency on real object.
Enhance multipletimes(as mentioned in question):
Proxy: we could utilize proxy to wrap real object once not several times.
Decorator: A decorator can wrap the real object several times or can wrap the object which is already wrapped by a decorator(which could be both a different decorator or the same decorator). Eg, for an order system, you can do discount with decorators.
PercentageDiscountDecorator is to cut 50% off, and DeductionAmountDiscountDecorator is to deduct 5$ directly if the amount is greater than 10$(). So,
1). When you want to cut 50% off and deduct 5$, you can do: new DeductionAmountDiscountDecorator(new PercentageDiscountDecorator(delegatee))
2). When you want to deduct 10$, you can do new DeductionAmountDiscountDecorator(new DeductionAmountDiscountDecorator(delegatee)).
The answer to the question has nothing to do with the difference between Proxy and Decorator. Why?
Design patterns just patterns for people who are not good at OO skills to make use of OO solutions. If you are familiar with OO, you don't need to know how many design patterns there(Before design patterns invented, with the same prolbem skilled people could figure out the same solution).
No two leaves are exactly the same, so as the problems you encount. People will always find their problems are different from the problems given by design patterns.
If your specified problem is really different from both problems that Proxy and Decorator work on, and really needs an aggregation, why not to use? I think to apply OO to your problem is much more important than you label it a Proxy or Decorator.
I'm using Ninject.Web.Common and I really like Ninject so far. I'm not used to dependency injection yet so I've got a pretty lame question I can't however google and answer to so far.
Suppose I have a Message Handler which depends on my IUnitOfWork implementation. I need to construct an instance of my handler to add it to Web API config. I've managed to achieve this using the following code:
var resolver = GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver;
config.MessageHandlers.Add((myproject.Filters.ApiAuthHandler)resolver.GetService(typeof(myproject.Filters.ApiAuthHandler)));
I really dislike typing this kind of stuff so I'm wondering if I'm doing it right. What's the common way of constructing dependent objects manually?
Well I use dependency injection in real world projects only half a year ago, so I'm a pretty new to this stuff. I would really recommend the Dependency Injection in .NET book, where all the concepts are described pretty well and I learned a lot from it.
So far for me what worked the best is overwriting the default controller factory like this:
public class NinjectControllerFactory : DefaultControllerFactory
{
private IKernel _kernel;
public NinjectControllerFactory()
{
_kernel= new StandardKernel();
ConfigureBindings();
}
protected override IController GetControllerInstance(RequestContext requestContext,
Type controllerType)
{
return controllerType == null
? null
: (IController)_kernel.Get(controllerType);
}
private void ConfigureBindings()
{
_kernel.Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<MessageHandler>();
}
}
And in the Global.asax in the Application_Start function you just have to add this line:
ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new NinjectControllerFactory());
This approach is called the composition root pattern and considered the "good" way for dependency injection.
What I would recommend as well that if you have multiple endpoints like services and other workers as well you should create an Application.CompositionRoot project and handle there the different binding configuration for the different endpoints for your application.
I'm trying to embrace widespread dependency injection/IoC. As I read more and more about the benefits I can certainly appreciate them, however I am concerned that in some cases that embracing the dependency injection pattern might lead me to create flexibility at the expense of being able to limit risk by encapsulating controls on what the system is capable of doing and what mistakes I or another programmer on the project are capable of making. I suspect I'm missing something in the pattern that addresses my concerns and am hoping someone can point it out.
Here's a simplified example of what concerns me. Suppose I have a method NotifyAdmins on a Notification class and that I use this method to distribute very sensitive information to users that have been defined as administrators in the application. The information might be distributed by fax, email, IM, etc. based on user-defined settings. This method needs to retrieve a list of administrators. Historically, I would encapsulate building the set of administrators in the method with a call to an AdminSet class, or a call to a UserSet class that asks for a set of user objects that are administrators, or even via direct call(s) to the database. Then, I can call the method Notification.NotifyAdmins without fear of accidentally sending sensitive information to non-administrators.
I believe dependency injection calls for me to take an admin list as a parameter (in one form or another). This does facilitate testing, however, what's to prevent me from making a foolish mistake in calling code and passing in a set of NonAdmins? If I don't inject the set, I can only accidentally email the wrong people with mistakes in one or two fixed places. If I do inject the set aren't I exposed to making this mistake everywhere I call the method and inject the set of administrators? Am I doing something wrong? Are there facilities in the IoC frameworks that allow you to specify these kinds of constraints but still use dependency injection?
Thanks.
You need to reverse your thinking.
If you have a service/class that is supposed to mail out private information to admins only, instead of passing a list of admins to this service, instead you pass another service from which the class can retrieve the list of admins.
Yes, you still have the possibility of making a mistake, but this code:
AdminProvider provider = new AdminProvider();
Notification notify = new Notification(provider);
notify.Execute();
is harder to get wrong than this:
String[] admins = new String[] { "joenormal#hotmail.com" };
Notification notify = new Notification(admins);
notify.Execute();
In the first case, the methods and classes involved would clearly be named in such a way that it would be easy to spot a mistake.
Internally in your Execute method, the code might look like this:
List<String> admins = _AdminProvider.GetAdmins();
...
If, for some reason, the code looks like this:
List<String> admins = _AdminProvider.GetAllUserEmails();
then you have a problem, but that should be easy to spot.
No, dependency injection does not require you to pass the admin list as a parameter. I think you are slightly misunderstanding it. However, in your example, it would involve you injecting the AdminSet instance that your Notification class uses to build its admin list. This would then enable you to mock out this object to test the Notification class in isolation.
Dependencies are generally injected at the time a class is instantiated, using one of these methods: constructor injection (passing dependent class instances in the class's constructor), property injecion (setting the dependent class instances as properties) or something else (e.g. making all injectable objects implement a particular interface that allows the IOC container to call a single method that injects its dependencies. They are not generally injected into each method call as you suggest.
Other good answers have already been given, but I'd like to add this:
You can be both open for extensibility (following the Open/Closed Principle) and still protect sensitive assets. One good way is by using the Specification pattern.
In this case, you could pass in a completely arbitrary list of users, but then filter those users by an AdminSpecification so that only Administrators recieve the notification.
Perhaps your Notification class would have an API similar to this:
public class Notification
{
private readonly string message;
public Notification(string message)
{
this.message = message;
this.AdminSpecification = new AdminSpecification();
}
public ISpecification AdminSpecification { get; set; }
public void SendTo(IEnumerable users)
{
foreach(var u in users.Where(this.AdminSpecification.IsSatisfiedBy))
{
this.Notify(u);
}
}
// more members
}
You can still override the filtering behavior for testing-purposes by assigning a differet Specification, but the default value is secure, so you would be less likely to make mistakes with this API.
For even better protection, you could wrap this whole implementation behind a Facade interface.