Given a bean like this:
public class MyBean {
private List<Something> things;
private List<Something> internalGetThings() {
if (things == null) {
things = new ArrayList<Something>();
}
return things;
}
public Iterable<Something> getThings() {
return <an immutable copy of internalGetThings()>;
}
public void setThings(List<Something> someThings) {
things.clear();
for (Something aThing : someThings) {
addThing(aThing);
}
}
public void addThing(Something aThing) {
things.add(aThing);
// Do some special stuff to aThing
}
}
Using external mapping file, when I map like this:
<xml-element java-attribute="things" name="thing" type="com.myco.Something" container-type="java.util.ArrayList" />
It seems that each individual Something is being added to the MyBean by calling getThings().add(). That's a problem because getThings() returns an immutable copy of the list, which is lazily initialized. How can I configure mapping (I'm using an external mapping file, not annotations) so that MOXy uses setThings() or addThing() instead?
Why Does JAXB/MOXy Check the Get Method for Collection First?
JAXB (JSR-222) implementations give you a chance to have your property be the List interface and still leverage the underlying List implementation that you choose to use. To accomplish this a JAXB implementation will call the get method to see if the List implementation has been initialized. It it has the List will be populated using the add method.
public List<String> getThings() {
if(null == things) {
things = new ArrayList<String>();
}
return things;
}
public List<String> getThings() {
if(null == things) {
things = new LinkedList<String>();
}
return things;
}
If you don't pre-initialize the List property then MOXy/JAXB will build an instance of the List (default is ArrayList) and set it on the object using the set method.
private List<Something> things; // Don't Initialize
public List<String> getThings() {
return things;
}
public void setThings(List<String> things) {
this.things = things;
}
Given the reason in #Blaise's answer, it doesn't seem possible to have MOXy (or any JAXB implementation in general?) populate a lazily-initialized collection via a setter method on the collection. However, a combination of xml-accessor-type="FIELD" (or #XmlAccessorType if using annotations) and defining a JAXB unmarshal event callback will get the job done. In my afterUnmarshal() implementation I do the special work on Something instances that is done in addSomething().
private void afterUnmarshal(Unmarshaller, Object parent) {
for (Something aThing : getSomethings()) {
// Do special stuff on aThing
}
}
Using FIELD access type gets JAXB/MOXy to directly inject the collection into the field, bypassing the getter. Then the call back cleans things up properly.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 months ago.
Improve this question
There is an interface called Processor, which has two implementations SimpleProcessor and ComplexProcessor.
Now I have a process, which consumes an input, and then using that input decides whether it should use SimpleProcessor or ComplexProcessor.
Current solution : I was thinking to use Abstract Factory, which will generate the instance on the basis of the input.
But the issue is that I don't want new instances. I want to use already instantiated objects. That is, I want to re-use the instances.
That means, Abstract factory is absolutely the wrong pattern to use here, as it is for generating objects on the basis of type.
Another thing, that our team normally does is to create a map from input to the corresponding processor instance. And at runtime, we can use that map to get the correct instance on the basis of input.
This feels like a adhoc solution.
I want this to be extendable : new input types can be mapped to new processor types.
Is there some standard way to solve this?
You can use a variation of the Chain of Responsibility pattern.
It will scale far better than using a Map (or hash table in general).
This variation will support dependency injection and is very easy to extend (without breaking any code or violating the Open-Closed principle).
Opposed to the classic version, handlers do not need to be explicitly chained. The classic version scales very bad.
The pattern uses polymorphism to enable extensibility and is therefore targeting an object oriented language.
The pattern is as follows:
The client API is a container class, that manages a collection of input handlers (for example SimnpleProcessor and ComplexProcessor).
Each handler is only known to the container by a common interface and unknown to the client.
The collection of handlers is passed to the container via the constructor (to enable optional dependency injection).
The container accepts the predicate (input) and passes it on to the anonymous handlers by iterating over the handler collection.
Each handler now decides based on the input if it can handle it (return true) or not (return false).
If a handler returns true (to signal that the input was successfully handled), the container will break further input processing by other handlers (alternatively, use a different criteria e.g., to allow multiple handlers to handle the input).
In the following very basic example implementation, the order of handler execution is simply defined by their position in their container (collection).
If this isn't sufficient, you can simply implement a priority algorithm.
Implementation (C#)
Below is the container. It manages the individual handler implementation using polymorphism. Since handler implementation are only known by their common interface, the container scales extremely well: simply add/inject an additional handler implementation.
The container is actually used directly by the client (whereas the handlers are hidden from the client, while anonymous to the container).
interface IInputProcessor
{
void Process(object input);
}
class InputProcessor : IInputProcessor
{
private IEnumerable<IInputHandler> InputHandlers { get; }
// Constructor.
// Optionally use an IoC container to inject the dependency (a collection of input handlers).
public InputProcessor(IEnumerable<IInputHandler> inputHandlers)
{
this.InputHandlers = inputHandlers;
}
// Method to handle the input.
// The input is then delegated to the input handlers.
public void Process(object input)
{
foreach (IInputHandler inputHandler in this.InputHandlers)
{
if (inputHandler.TryHandle(input))
{
return;
}
}
}
}
Below are the input handlers.
To add new handlers i.e. to extend input handling, simply implement the IInputHandler interface and add it to a collection which is passed/injected to the container (IInputProcessor):
interface IInputHandler
{
bool TryHandle(object input);
}
class SimpleProcessor : IInputHandler
{
public bool TryHandle(object input)
{
if (input == 1)
{
//TODO::Handle input
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
class ComplexProcessor : IInputHandler
{
public bool TryHandle(object input)
{
if (input == 3)
{
//TODO::Handle input
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
Usage Example
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
/* Setup Chain of Responsibility.
/* Preferably configure an IoC container. */
var inputHandlers = new List<IInputHandlers>
{
new SimpleProcessor(),
new ComplexProcessor()
};
IInputProcessor inputProcessor = new InputProcessor(inputHandlers);
/* Use the handler chain */
int input = 3;
inputProcessor.Pocess(input); // Will execute the ComplexProcessor
input = 1;
inputProcessor.Pocess(input); // Will execute the SimpleProcessor
}
}
It is possible to use Strategy pattern with combination of Factory pattern. Factory objects can be cached to have reusable objects without recreating them when objects are necessary.
As an alternative to caching, it is possible to use singleton pattern. In ASP.NET Core it is pretty simple. And if you have DI container, just make sure that you've set settings of creation instance to singleton
Let's start with the first example. We need some enum of ProcessorType:
public enum ProcessorType
{
Simple, Complex
}
Then this is our abstraction of processors:
public interface IProcessor
{
DateTime DateCreated { get; }
}
And its concrete implemetations:
public class SimpleProcessor : IProcessor
{
public DateTime DateCreated { get; } = DateTime.Now;
}
public class ComplexProcessor : IProcessor
{
public DateTime DateCreated { get; } = DateTime.Now;
}
Then we need a factory with cached values:
public class ProcessorFactory
{
private static readonly IDictionary<ProcessorType, IProcessor> _cache
= new Dictionary<ProcessorType, IProcessor>()
{
{ ProcessorType.Simple, new SimpleProcessor() },
{ ProcessorType.Complex, new ComplexProcessor() }
};
public IProcessor GetInstance(ProcessorType processorType)
{
return _cache[processorType];
}
}
And code can be run like this:
ProcessorFactory processorFactory = new ProcessorFactory();
Thread.Sleep(3000);
var simpleProcessor = processorFactory.GetInstance(ProcessorType.Simple);
Console.WriteLine(simpleProcessor.DateCreated); // OUTPUT: 2022-07-07 8:00:01
ProcessorFactory processorFactory_1 = new ProcessorFactory();
Thread.Sleep(3000);
var complexProcessor = processorFactory_1.GetInstance(ProcessorType.Complex);
Console.WriteLine(complexProcessor.DateCreated); // OUTPUT: 2022-07-07 8:00:01
The second way
The second way is to use DI container. So we need to modify our factory to get instances from dependency injection container:
public class ProcessorFactoryByDI
{
private readonly IDictionary<ProcessorType, IProcessor> _cache;
public ProcessorFactoryByDI(
SimpleProcessor simpleProcessor,
ComplexProcessor complexProcessor)
{
_cache = new Dictionary<ProcessorType, IProcessor>()
{
{ ProcessorType.Simple, simpleProcessor },
{ ProcessorType.Complex, complexProcessor }
};
}
public IProcessor GetInstance(ProcessorType processorType)
{
return _cache[processorType];
}
}
And if you use ASP.NET Core, then you can declare your objects as singleton like this:
services.AddSingleton<SimpleProcessor>();
services.AddSingleton<ComplexProcessor>();
Read more about lifetime of an object
Normally, the .Dump() extension method in LINQPad shows XNode and its derived class instances as a rendered XML fragment. Sometimes while developing code I would prefer to see actual properties of the object, in the same table form that is dumped for other types, like a table that would show the Name, Value, FirstAttribute and whatsnot properties of the node and their .ToString() values, or interactively expandable collections of subobjects. In short, as if XNode were not handled specially at all.
I am working around this by dumping individual properties, but this is tedious.
This answer suggests writing a custom extension code to achieve a similar effect for another type, namely IEnumerable, but it seems a narrower and rarer case than that which I am dealing with.
Is there an out-of-the box way to do what I want?
LINQPad supports customizing Dump for types. Using some extension methods, you can convert the types to ExpandoObjects and then they will be output with properties.
In My Extensions, after the MyExtensions class, add a top level method:
static object ToDump(object obj) {
if (obj is XObject x)
return x.ToExpando();
else
return obj;
}
In the MyExtensions class, add the following extension methods. I already had the object->Dictionary methods for converting to anonymous objects, so I used those, but you could combine them to create a single ToExpando on object:
public static ExpandoObject ToExpando(this object obj) => obj.ToDictionary().ToExpando();
public static IDictionary<string, object> ToDictionary(this object obj) {
if (obj is IDictionary<string, object> id)
return id;
else {
var dictAnsObj = new Dictionary<string, object>();
foreach (var prop in obj.GetType().GetPropertiesOrFields()) {
try {
dictAnsObj.Add(prop.Name, prop.GetValue(obj));
}
catch (Exception ex) {
dictAnsObj.Add(prop.Name, ex);
}
}
return dictAnsObj;
}
}
public static ExpandoObject ToExpando(this IDictionary<string, object> objDict) {
var e = new ExpandoObject();
var di = (IDictionary<string, object>)e;
foreach (var kvp in objDict)
di.Add(kvp);
return e;
}
You will also need this Type extension:
// ***
// *** Type Extensions
// ***
public static List<MemberInfo> GetPropertiesOrFields(this Type t, BindingFlags bf = BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance) =>
t.GetMembers(bf).Where(mi => mi.MemberType == MemberTypes.Field | mi.MemberType == MemberTypes.Property).ToList();
If you are okay with just displaying the top level object in class format, you could just use this extension method when you need to:
public static T DumpAs<T, NewT>(this T obj, Func<T, NewT> castFn, string description = null) {
if (description != null)
castFn(obj).Dump(description);
else
castFn(obj).Dump();
return obj;
}
For example,
XElement xn;
xn.DumpAs(x => x.ToExpando());
Otherwise, you will have to comment out the ToDump method or do something tricky with fluent methods to turn it on and off.
This answer depends on the previous answer, but extends it to handle dumping XObjects as classes when desired with an alternative extension method and ToDump method. It uses the same extensions as my previous answer otherwise.
In the MyExtensions class, add a new type of dump and a bool to track status:
public static bool bDumpAsClass = false;
public static object DumpAsClass(this object input, string descr = null) {
bDumpAsClass = true;
if (descr != null)
input.Dump(descr);
else
input.Dump();
bDumpAsClass = false;
return input;
}
Outside the MyExtensions class, add a ToDump method that uses the bool:
static object ToDump(object obj) {
if (MyExtensions.bDumpAsClass) {
if (obj is XObject x)
return x.ToExpando();
}
return obj;
}
Then you can just use DumpAsClass instead of Dump when you want to dump an XObject or descendant as a class, expanding any members as well.
Obviously you could expand the types handled when bDumpAsClass is true.
So i have a class that makes an array list for me and i need to access it in another class through a constructor but i don't know what to put into the constructor because all my methods in that class are just for manipulating that list. im either getting a null pointer exception or a out of bounds exception. ive tried just leaving the constructor empty but that dosent seem to help. thanks in advance. i would show you code but my professor is very strict on academic dishonesty so i cant sorry if that makes it hard.
You are confusing the main question, with a potential solution.
Main Question:
I have a class ArrayListOwnerClass with an enclosed arraylist property or field.
How should another class ArrayListFriendClass access that property.
Potential Solution:
Should I pass the arraylist from ArrayListOwnerClass to ArrayListFriendClass,
in the ArrayListFriendClass constructor ?
It depends on what the second class does with the arraylist.
Instead of passing the list thru the constructor, you may add functions to read or change, as public, the elements of the hidden internal arraylist.
Note: You did not specify a programming language. I'll use C#, altought Java, C++, or similar O.O.P. could be used, instead.
public class ArrayListOwnerClass
{
protected int F_Length;
protected ArrayList F_List;
public ArrayListOwnerClass(int ALength)
{
this.F_Length = ALength;
this.F_List = new ArrayList(ALength);
// ...
} // ArrayListOwnerClass(...)
public int Length()
{
return this.F_Length;
} // int Length(...)
public object getAt(int AIndex)
{
return this.F_List[AIndex];
} // object getAt(...)
public void setAt(int AIndex, object AValue)
{
this.F_List[AIndex] = AValue;
} // void setAt(...)
public void DoOtherStuff()
{
// ...
} // void DoOtherStuff(...)
// ...
} // class ArrayListOwnerClass
public class ArrayListFriendClass
{
public void UseArrayList(ArrayListOwnerClass AListOwner)
{
bool CanContinue =
(AListOwner != null) && (AListOwner.Length() > 0);
if (CanContinue)
{
int AItem = AListOwner.getAt(5);
DoSomethingWith(Item);
} // if (CanContinue)
} // void UseArrayList(...)
public void AlsoDoesOtherStuff()
{
// ...
} // void AlsoDoesOtherStuff(...)
// ...
} // class ArrayListFriendClass
Note, that I could use an indexed property.
I want to use DI whenever I call automapper so that I can uncouple some of my layers. Instead of calling automapper like this:
public class MyController : Controller
{
public ActionResult MyAction(MyModel model)
{
var newModel= Mapper.Map<MyModel, NewModel>(model);
return View(model);
}
}
I want to do this:
public class MyController : Controller
{
IMappingEngine _mappingEngine;
public MyController(IMappingEngine mappingEngine)
{
_mappingEngine = mappingEngine;
}
public ActionResult MyAction(MyModel model)
{
var newModel= _mappingEngine.Map<MyModel, NewModel>(model);
return View(model);
}
}
I am using Ninject as my IOC. How do I bind an interface to it though?
I also need to mention that I am using Profiles and already have:
var profileType = typeof(Profile);
// Get an instance of each Profile in the executing assembly.
var profiles = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes()
.Where(t => profileType.IsAssignableFrom(t)
&& t.GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes) != null)
.Select(Activator.CreateInstance)
.Cast<Profile>();
// Initialize AutoMapper with each instance of the profiles found.
Mapper.Initialize(a => profiles.ForEach(a.AddProfile));
I know that the step I am missing involves binding to the kernal:
kernel.Bind<IMappingEngine>.To<>(); //I do not know what
//to bind it to here so that when I call IMappingEngine;
//It will trigger my maps from my automapper profiles.
I can't seem to find IMappingService in the AutoMapper repository (https://github.com/AutoMapper/AutoMapper/search?q=IMappingService). However, there is a IMappingEngine.
All you've got to do is
IBindingRoot.Bind<IMappingEngine>().ToMethod(x => Mapper.Engine);
or
IBindingRoot.Bind<IMappingEngine>().To<MappingEngine>();
IBindingRoot.Bind<IConfigurationProvider>().ToMethod(x => Mapper.Engine.ConfigurationProvider);
and you're good to go.
Remember, however, that the first access to Mapper.Engine or Mapper.ConfigurationProvider will initialize AutoMapper.
So without the binding, AutoMapper get's initialized the first time you do something like Mapper.Map<,>. With the binding it will get initialized the first time an object is constructed which gets IMappingEngine injected.
If you want to retain the previous initialization behavior there are a few choices:.
a) Instead of injecting IMappingEngine inject Lazy<IMappingEngine> instead (i think this requires the ninject.extensions.factory extension)
b) bind IMappingEngine to a proxy (without target). The proxy should access the Mapper.Engine only when .Intercept(...)ing a method. Also it should forward the method calls.
c) write your own LazyInitializedMappingEngine : IMappingEngine implementation which does nothing than forward every method to Mapper.Engine.
i would probably go with c), the others are too much work. c) will require code adaption whenever the interface of IMappingEngine changes. b) would not but is more complicated and slower. a) is bleeding through to all consumers of the interface and easily to get wrong once in a while, breaking stuff and a bit hard to trace back, so i would refrain from it, too.
c):
public class LazyInitializedMappingEngine : IMappingEngine
{
public IConfigurationProvider ConfigurationProvider { get { return Mapper.Engine.ConfigurationProvider; } }
public TDestination Map<TDestination>(object source)
{
return Mapper.Map<TDestination>(source);
}
public TDestination Map<TDestination>(object source, Action<IMappingOperationOptions> opts)
{
return Mapper.Map<TDestination>(source, opts);
}
public TDestination Map<TSource, TDestination>(TSource source)
{
return Mapper.Map<TSource, TDestination>(source);
}
//... and so on ...
}
kernel.Bind<IMappingEngine>().To<LazyInitializedMappingEngine>();
Is anybody using JSON.NET with nHibernate? I notice that I am getting errors when I try to load a class with child collections.
I was facing the same problem so I tried to use #Liedman's code but the GetSerializableMembers() was never get called for the proxied reference.
I found another method to override:
public class NHibernateContractResolver : DefaultContractResolver
{
protected override JsonContract CreateContract(Type objectType)
{
if (typeof(NHibernate.Proxy.INHibernateProxy).IsAssignableFrom(objectType))
return base.CreateContract(objectType.BaseType);
else
return base.CreateContract(objectType);
}
}
We had this exact problem, which was solved with inspiration from Handcraftsman's response here.
The problem arises from JSON.NET being confused about how to serialize NHibernate's proxy classes. Solution: serialize the proxy instances like their base class.
A simplified version of Handcraftsman's code goes like this:
public class NHibernateContractResolver : DefaultContractResolver {
protected override List<MemberInfo> GetSerializableMembers(Type objectType) {
if (typeof(INHibernateProxy).IsAssignableFrom(objectType)) {
return base.GetSerializableMembers(objectType.BaseType);
} else {
return base.GetSerializableMembers(objectType);
}
}
}
IMHO, this code has the advantage of still relying on JSON.NET's default behaviour regarding custom attributes, etc. (and the code is a lot shorter!).
It is used like this
var serializer = new JsonSerializer{
ReferenceLoopHandling = ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore,
ContractResolver = new NHibernateContractResolver()
};
StringWriter stringWriter = new StringWriter();
JsonWriter jsonWriter = new Newtonsoft.Json.JsonTextWriter(stringWriter);
serializer.Serialize(jsonWriter, objectToSerialize);
string serializedObject = stringWriter.ToString();
Note: This code was written for and used with NHibernate 2.1. As some commenters have pointed out, it doesn't work out of the box with later versions of NHibernate, you will have to make some adjustments. I will try to update the code if I ever have to do it with later versions of NHibernate.
I use NHibernate with Json.NET and noticed that I was getting inexplicable "__interceptors" properties in my serialized objects. A google search turned up this excellent solution by Lee Henson which I adapted to work with Json.NET 3.5 Release 5 as follows.
public class NHibernateContractResolver : DefaultContractResolver
{
private static readonly MemberInfo[] NHibernateProxyInterfaceMembers = typeof(INHibernateProxy).GetMembers();
protected override List<MemberInfo> GetSerializableMembers(Type objectType)
{
var members = base.GetSerializableMembers(objectType);
members.RemoveAll(memberInfo =>
(IsMemberPartOfNHibernateProxyInterface(memberInfo)) ||
(IsMemberDynamicProxyMixin(memberInfo)) ||
(IsMemberMarkedWithIgnoreAttribute(memberInfo, objectType)) ||
(IsMemberInheritedFromProxySuperclass(memberInfo, objectType)));
var actualMemberInfos = new List<MemberInfo>();
foreach (var memberInfo in members)
{
var infos = memberInfo.DeclaringType.BaseType.GetMember(memberInfo.Name);
actualMemberInfos.Add(infos.Length == 0 ? memberInfo : infos[0]);
}
return actualMemberInfos;
}
private static bool IsMemberDynamicProxyMixin(MemberInfo memberInfo)
{
return memberInfo.Name == "__interceptors";
}
private static bool IsMemberInheritedFromProxySuperclass(MemberInfo memberInfo, Type objectType)
{
return memberInfo.DeclaringType.Assembly == typeof(INHibernateProxy).Assembly;
}
private static bool IsMemberMarkedWithIgnoreAttribute(MemberInfo memberInfo, Type objectType)
{
var infos = typeof(INHibernateProxy).IsAssignableFrom(objectType)
? objectType.BaseType.GetMember(memberInfo.Name)
: objectType.GetMember(memberInfo.Name);
return infos[0].GetCustomAttributes(typeof(JsonIgnoreAttribute), true).Length > 0;
}
private static bool IsMemberPartOfNHibernateProxyInterface(MemberInfo memberInfo)
{
return Array.Exists(NHibernateProxyInterfaceMembers, mi => memberInfo.Name == mi.Name);
}
}
To use it just put an instance in the ContractResolver property of your JsonSerializer. The circular dependency problem noted by jishi can be resolved by setting the ReferenceLoopHandling property to ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore . Here's an extension method that can be used to serialize objects using Json.Net
public static void SerializeToJsonFile<T>(this T itemToSerialize, string filePath)
{
using (StreamWriter streamWriter = new StreamWriter(filePath))
{
using (JsonWriter jsonWriter = new JsonTextWriter(streamWriter))
{
jsonWriter.Formatting = Formatting.Indented;
JsonSerializer serializer = new JsonSerializer
{
NullValueHandling = NullValueHandling.Ignore,
ReferenceLoopHandling = ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore,
ContractResolver = new NHibernateContractResolver(),
};
serializer.Serialize(jsonWriter, itemToSerialize);
}
}
}
Are you getting a circular dependancy-error? How do you ignore objects from serialization?
Since lazy loading generates a proxy-objects, any attributes your class-members have will be lost. I ran into the same issue with Newtonsoft JSON-serializer, since the proxy-object didn't have the [JsonIgnore] attributes anymore.
You will probably want to eager load most of the object so that it can be serialized:
ICriteria ic = _session.CreateCriteria(typeof(Person));
ic.Add(Restrictions.Eq("Id", id));
if (fetchEager)
{
ic.SetFetchMode("Person", FetchMode.Eager);
}
A nice way to do this is to add a bool to the constructor (bool isFetchEager) of your data provider method.
I'd say this is a design problem in my opinion. Because NH makes connections to the database underneath all and has proxies in the middle, it is not good for the transparency of your application to serialize them directly (and as you can see Json.NET does not like them at all).
You should not serialize the entities themselves, but you should convert them into "view" objects or POCO or DTO objects (whatever you want to call them) and then serialize these.
The difference is that while NH entity may have proxies, lazy attributes, etc. View objects are simple objects with only primitives which are serializable by default.
How to manage FKs?
My personal rule is:
Entity level: Person class and with a Gender class associated
View level: Person view with GenderId and GenderName properties.
This means that you need to expand your properties into primitives when converting to view objects. This way also your json objects are simpler and easier to handle.
When you need to push the changes to the DB, in my case I use AutoMapper and do a ValueResolver class which can convert your new Guid to the Gender object.
UPDATE: Check http://blog.andrewawhitaker.com/blog/2014/06/19/queryover-series-part-4-transforming/ for a way to get the view directly (AliasToBean) from NH. This would be a boost in the DB side.
The problem can happen when NHibernate wraps the nested collection properties in a PersistentGenericBag<> type.
The GetSerializableMembers and CreateContract overrides cannot detect that these nested collection properties are "proxied". One way to resolve this is to override the CreateProperty method. The trick is to get the value from the property using reflection and test whether the type is of PersistentGenericBag. This method also has the ability to filter any properties that generated exceptions.
public class NHibernateContractResolver : DefaultContractResolver
{
protected override JsonProperty CreateProperty(MemberInfo member, MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
JsonProperty property = base.CreateProperty(member, memberSerialization);
property.ShouldSerialize = instance =>
{
try
{
PropertyInfo prop = (PropertyInfo)member;
if (prop.CanRead)
{
var value = prop.GetValue(instance, null);
if (value != null && typeof(NHibernate.Collection.Generic.PersistentGenericBag<>).IsSubclassOfRawGeneric(value.GetType()))
return false;
return true;
}
}
catch
{ }
return false;
};
return property;
}
}
The IsSubclassOfRawGeneric extension used above:
public static class TypeExtensions
{
public static bool IsSubclassOfRawGeneric(this Type generic, Type? toCheck)
{
while (toCheck != null && toCheck != typeof(object))
{
var cur = toCheck.IsGenericType ? toCheck.GetGenericTypeDefinition() : toCheck;
if (generic == cur)
{
return true;
}
toCheck = toCheck?.BaseType;
}
return false;
}
}
If you serialize objects that contain NHibernate proxy classes you might end up downloading the whole database, because once the property is accessed NHibernate would trigger a request to the database.
I've just implemented a Unit of Work for NHibernate: NHUnit that fixes two of the most annoying issues from NHibernate: proxy classes and cartesian product when using fetch.
How would you use this?
var customer = await _dbContext.Customers.Get(customerId) //returns a wrapper to configure the query
.Include(c => c.Addresses.Single().Country, //include Addresses and Country
c => c.PhoneNumbers.Single().PhoneNumberType) //include all PhoneNumbers with PhoneNumberType
.Unproxy() //instructs the framework to strip all the proxy classes when the Value is returned
.Deferred() //instructs the framework to delay execution (future)
.ValueAsync(token); //this is where all deferred queries get executed
The above code is basically configuring a query: return a customer by id with multiple child objects which should be executed with other queries (futures) and the returned result should be stripped of NHibernate proxies. The query gets executed when ValueAsync is called.
NHUnit determines if it should do join with the main query, create new future queries or make use of batch fetch.
There is a simple example project on Github to show you how to use NHUnit package. If others are interested in this project I will invest more time to make it better.
This is what I use:
Have a marker interface and inherit it on your entities, e.g. in my case empty IEntity.
We will use the marker interface to detect NHibernate entity types in the contract resolver.
public class CustomerEntity : IEntity { ... }
Create a custom contract resolver for JSON.NET
public class NHibernateProxyJsonValueProvider : IValueProvider {
private readonly IValueProvider _valueProvider;
public NHibernateProxyJsonValueProvider(IValueProvider valueProvider)
{
_valueProvider = valueProvider;
}
public void SetValue(object target, object value)
{
_valueProvider.SetValue(target, value);
}
private static (bool isProxy, bool isInitialized) GetProxy(object proxy)
{
// this is pretty much what NHibernateUtil.IsInitialized() does.
switch (proxy)
{
case INHibernateProxy hibernateProxy:
return (true, !hibernateProxy.HibernateLazyInitializer.IsUninitialized);
case ILazyInitializedCollection initializedCollection:
return (true, initializedCollection.WasInitialized);
case IPersistentCollection persistentCollection:
return (true, persistentCollection.WasInitialized);
default:
return (false, false);
}
}
public object GetValue(object target)
{
object value = _valueProvider.GetValue(target);
(bool isProxy, bool isInitialized) = GetProxy(value);
if (isProxy)
{
if (isInitialized)
{
return value;
}
if (value is IEnumerable)
{
return Enumerable.Empty<object>();
}
return null;
}
return value;
}
}
public class NHibernateContractResolver : CamelCasePropertyNamesContractResolver {
protected override JsonContract CreateContract(Type objectType)
{
if (objectType.IsAssignableTo(typeof(IEntity)))
{
return base.CreateObjectContract(objectType);
}
return base.CreateContract(objectType);
}
protected override JsonProperty CreateProperty(MemberInfo member, MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
JsonProperty property = base.CreateProperty(member, memberSerialization);
property.ValueProvider = new NHibernateProxyJsonValueProvider(property.ValueProvider);
return property;
}
}
Normal uninitialized lazy loaded properties will result in null in the json output.
Collection uninitialized lazy loaded properties will result in an [] empty array in json.
So for a lazy loaded property to appear in the json output you need to eagerly load it in the query or in code before serialization.
Usage:
JsonConvert.SerializeObject(entityToSerialize, new JsonSerializerSettings() {
ContractResolver = new NHibernateContractResolver()
});
Or globally in in ASP.NET Core Startup class
services.AddNewtonsoftJson(options =>
{
options.SerializerSettings.ContractResolver = new NHibernateContractResolver();
});
Using:
NET 5.0
NHibernate 5.3.8
JSON.NET latest via ASP.NET Core