I have a service that takes a dependency on HttpContextBase.
Ninject is injecting this for me already as it's set up in the MvcModule to return new HttpContextWrapper(HttpContext.Current) when HttpContextBase is requested
I want to use this service in Application_AuthenticateRequest, so i'm using property injection so that Ninject resolves it for me
When I try and access Request.UserHostAddress on the HttpContextBase I get a Value does not fall within the expected range exception
If I call HttpContext.Current.Request.UserHostAddress directly it works without problems
ExampleService.cs
public class ExampleService : IExampleService {
HttpContextBase _contextBase;
public ExampleService(HttpContextBase contextBase) {
_contextBase = contextBase;
}
public void DoSomething() {
var ip = HttpContext.Current.Request.UserHostAddress; <== this works
ip = _contextBase.Request.UserHostAddress; <== this fails
}
}
Global.asax
[Inject]
public IExampleService ExampleService { get; set; }
public void Application_AuthenticateRequest() {
ExampleService.DoSomething();
}
I'm missing something here, but I can't see what
Dependencies that are injected into classes live as long as the the class they get injected into, because the class holds a reference to them. This means that in general you should prevent injecting dependencies that are configured with a lifetime that is shorter than the containing class, since otherwise their lifetime is 'promoted' which can cause all sorts of (often hard to track) bugs.
In the case of an ASP.NET application, there is always just one HttpApplication instance that lives as long as the AppDomain lives. So what happens here is that the injected ExampleService gets promoted to one-per-appdomain (or singleton) and since the ExampleService sticks around, so does its dependency, the HttpContextBase.
The problem here of course is that an HTTP context -per definition- can't outlive a HTTP request. So you're storing a single HttpContextBase once, but it gets reused for all other requests. Fortunately ASP.NET throws an exception, otherwise you would probably be in much more trouble. Unfortunately the exception isn't very expressive. They could have done better in this case.
The solution is to not inject dependencies in your HttpApplication / MvcApplication. Ever! Although it's fine to do so when you're injecting singletons that only depend on singletons recursively, it is easy to do this wrong, and there's no verification mechanism in Ninject that signals you about this error.
Instead, always resolve IExampleService on each call to AuthenticateRequest. This ensures that you get an ExampleService with the right lifetime (hopefully configured as per-web-request or shorter) and prevents this kind of error. You can either call into the DependencyResolver class to fetch an IExampleService or call directly into the Ninject Kernel. Calling into the Kernel is fine, since the Application_AuthenticateRequest can be considered part of the Composition Root:
public void Application_AuthenticateRequest() {
var service = DependencyResolver.Current.GetService<IExampleService>();
service.DoSomething();
}
Related
In DDD, is the application layer who uses the repository to get the data from database, call the methods of the domain and then call the repository to persists the data. Something like that:
public void MyApplicationService()
{
Order myOrder = _orderRepository.Get(1);
myOrder.Update(data);
_orderRepository.Commit();
}
In this example the repository is a class variable that it is instantiate in the constructor of the service, so its life is the life of the class.
But I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to instantiate a repository for each action that I want to do, to have a shorter life, because if not, if I use the class for many actions, the repository will have many entities that perhaps it will not need more.
So I was thinking in a solution like this:
public void MyApplicationService()
{
OrderRepository myOrderRepository = new OrderRepository(_options);
Order myOrder = myOrderRepository.GetOrder(1);
myOrder.Update(data);
myOrderRepository.Commit();
myOrderRepository.Dispose();
}
So a new instance each time I need to do the action.
So in sumary, I would like to know about the differents solutions and the advantages and disadvanges to decide the lifespan of the repository.
Thanks.
The recommended lifespan of the repository is one business transaction.
Your second patch of code is correct in that aspect, however it has one drawback: you have created a strong dependency between the ApplicationService and OrderRepository classes. With your code, you are not able to isolate both class in order to unit test them separately. Also, you need to update the ApplicationService class whenever you change the constructor of the OrderRepository. If OrderRepository requires parameters to construct, then you have to construct them (which implies to reference their type and base types), despite this being an implementation detail of OrderRepository (needed for data persistence store access) and not needed for your application service layer.
For these reasons, most of modern program development rely on a pattern called Dependency Injection (DI). With DI, you specify that your ApplicationService class depends on an instance of the OrderRepository class, or better, an interface IOrderRepository whom the OrderRepository class implements. The dependency is declared by adding a parameter in the ApplicationService constructor:
public interface IOrderRepository : IDisposable
{
Order GetOrder(int id);
void Commit();
}
public class ApplicationService
{
private readonly OrderRepository orderRepository;
public ApplicationService(IOrderRepository orderRepository)
{
this.orderRepository = orderRepository ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(orderRepository));
}
public void Update(int id, string data)
{
Order myOrder = orderRepository.Get(id);
myOrder.Update(data);
orderRepository.Commit();
}
}
Now the DI library is responsible to construct OrderRepository and inject the instance in the ApplicationService class. If OrderRepository has its own dependencies, the library will resolve them first and construct the whole object graph so you don't have to do that yourself. You simply need to tell your DI library what specific implementation you want for each referenced interface. For example in C#:
public IServiceCollection AddServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
return services.AddScoped<IOrderRepository,OrderRepository>();
}
When unit testing your code, you can replace the actual implementation of OrderRepository with a mock object, such as Mock<IOrderRepository> or your own MockOrderRepository implementation. The code under test is then exactly the code in production, all wiring being done by the DI framework.
Most modern DI libraries have support for object lifetime management, including transient (always resolve a new object), singleton (always reuse the same object), or scoped (each scope has a single instance). The latter is what is used to isolate objects instance per business transaction, using a singleton ScopeFactory to create scopes whenever you start a business transaction:
public class UpdateOrderUseCase : UseCase
{
private readonly IScopeFactory scopeFactory;
public UpdateOrderUseCase(IScopeFactory scopeFactory) // redacted
public void UpdateOrder(int id, string data)
{
using var scope = scopeFactory.CreateScope();
var orderRepository = scope.GetService<IOrderRepository>();
var order = orderRepository.Get(id);
order.Update(data);
orderRepository.Commit();
// disposing the scope will also dispose the object graph
}
}
When you implement a REST service, that transaction usually corresponds to one HTTP request. Modern frameworks, such as asp.net core, will automatically create scopes per HTTP request and use that to resolve your dependency graph later in the framework internals. This means you don't even have to handle the ScopeFactory yourself.
I have a data cache class (that uses the MemoryCache class).
The basic function of this class is to cache reference data. To get this reference data it needs an instance of an Entity Framework dbContext. This gets passed in by dependency injection (Simple Injector).
But this dbContext has a lifecycle of "per call" (AsyncScopedLifestyle). So to satisify this I put the call to setup the cache in a "scope" that expires after the call.
The cache gets invalidated every 2 hours and is re-queried. Unsurprisingly, the dbContext has been cleaned up by then (because it went out of the scope).
I can think of ways to get around this issue. But I want to know if there is a pattern I should be following for this kind of issue. (Most of my solutions have me passing the container into my cache class. But that seems to be a violation of several DI patterns.)
Anyone know of a design pattern to use when you have a reoccurring need for an injection inside of a class?
A bit more background:
My cache class (called DataCache) gets the context from constructor injection.
The call to set it up is made from the Configure method in Startup.cs. This looks like this:
.
using (AsyncScopedLifestyle.BeginScope(container))
{
// Setup the long lived data caching
var dataCache = container.GetInstance<DataCache>();
dataCache.SetupCachedItems();
}
It sets the MemoryCache to expire the data in the cache after two hours. But the injected context is long cleaned up by then.
I see two general solutions here:
Move the cache that the DataCache manages out of that class, in such way that MyCacheClass can become Scoped. This seams a no-brainer as this is likely what MemoryCache is for. Memory cache is likely a Singleton.
Move DataCache into the Composition Root so it can safely depend on the container (or a container abstraction), without falling into Service Locator anti-pattern trap.
The first solution can be applied in multiple ways. Perhaps it's a matter of defining the cache in a static field:
public class DataCache
{
private static ConcurrentDictionary<string, object> cache;
}
And in case you inject MemoryCache as storage provider for your data, it will contain the cache, and the lifestyle of DataCache becomes irrelevant:
public class DataCache
{
public DataCache(MyContext context, IMemoryCache cache)
}
If, however, DataCache needs to be injected into Singleton consumers, it itself needs to be Singleton. This disallows this approach, as MyContext needs to be Scoped, to prevent Captive Dependencies. For that you can use solution 2.
With solution to, you ensure that DataCache is created inside your Composition Root. This forces you to hide DataCache behind an abstraction, e.g. IDataCache. This abstraction can be placed in a location that allows consumers to depend on, while the DataCache implementation will be completely hidden inside the Composition Root. At that location it becomes safe to depend on the DI Container.
// Part of the Composition Root
sealed class DataCache: IDataCache
{
public DataCache(Container container, IMemoryCache cache) ...
public ProductData GetProductByKey(string key)
{
if (key not in cache)
{
using (AsyncScopedLifestyle.BeginScope(this.container))
{
var context = container.GetInstance<MyContext>();
var p = context.Products.SingleOrDefault(p => p.Key == key);
var data = new ProductData(p);
AddProductToCache(key, data);
return data;
}
}
}
}
You should rely on DI the whole way. In other words, if the cache class needs the context, then that's a dependency, and should be injected as such:
public class MyCacheClass
{
private readonly MyContext _context;
public MyCacheClass(MyContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
...
}
That of course assumes the cache class has a scoped lifetime as well, which there's really no reason it shouldn't, since it interacts with scoped dependencies. However, if for some reason you need it to have a singleton lifetime, then you can simply inject IServiceProvider and then create a scope and pull out the context when you need it:
using (var scope = _serviceProvider.CreateScope())
{
var context = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<MyContext>();
// do something with context
}
If you're using a static class, don't.
I have a WebAPI service using SimpleInjector. I have this set up using AsyncScopedLifestyle for my scoped dependencies, and one of these dependencies is my Entity Framework DataContext. Many things in my service depend on the DataContext, and it is generally injected in to my MediatR handlers using constructor injection - this works well. Separately I have a few areas where I need to create an instance of an object given its type (as a string), so I have created a custom activator class (ResolvingActivator) that is configured with a reference to Container.GetInstance(Type):
In my container bootstrap code:
ResolvingActivator.Configure(container.GetInstance);
I can then create objects by using methods such as:
ResolvingActivator.CreateInstance<T>(typeName)
When I'm using WebAPI, the above is working perfectly.
A further part of the project is a legacy API that uses WCF. I have implemented this as a translation layer, where I translate old message formats to new message formats and then dispatch the messages to the Mediator; I then translate the responses (in new format) back to old format and return those to the caller. Because I need access to the Mediator in my WCF services, I'm injecting this in their constructors, and using the SimpleInjector.Integration.Wcf package to let SimpleInjector's supplied SimpleInjectorServiceHostFactory build instances of the services. I've also created a hybrid lifestyle, so I can use the same container for my both my WebAPI and WCF services:
container.Options.DefaultScopedLifestyle = Lifestyle.CreateHybrid(
new AsyncScopedLifestyle(),
new WcfOperationLifestyle());
This works well for some calls, but when a call ultimately calls my ResolvingActivator class, I get an ActivationException thrown, with the following message:
The DataContext is registered as 'Hybrid Async Scoped / WCF Operation' lifestyle, but the instance is requested outside the context of an active (Hybrid Async Scoped / WCF Operation) scope.
As I only receive this error when making WCF calls, I'm wondering if I have something wrong in my configuration. In a nutshell, this will work:
public class SomeClass
{
private readonly DataContext db;
public SomeClass(DataContext db)
{
this.db = db;
}
public bool SomeMethod() => this.db.Table.Any();
}
But this will not:
public class SomeClass
{
public bool SomeMethod()
{
// Code behind is calling container.GetInstance(typeof(DataContext))
var db = ResolvingActivator.CreateInstance<DataContext>();
return db.Table.Any();
}
}
Any ideas where I'm going wrong?
Edit: here is the stack trace from the ActivationException:
at SimpleInjector.Scope.GetScopelessInstance[TImplementation](ScopedRegistration`1 registration)
at SimpleInjector.Scope.GetInstance[TImplementation](ScopedRegistration`1 registration, Scope scope)
at SimpleInjector.Advanced.Internal.LazyScopedRegistration`1.GetInstance(Scope scope)
at lambda_method(Closure )
at SimpleInjector.InstanceProducer.GetInstance()
at SimpleInjector.Container.GetInstance(Type serviceType)
at Service.Core.ResolvingActivator.CreateInstance(Type type) in Service.Core\ResolvingActivator.cs:line 43
at Service.Core.ResolvingActivator.CreateInstance(String typeName) in Service.Core\ResolvingActivator.cs:line 35
at Service.Core.ResolvingActivator.CreateInstance[TService](String typeName) in Service.Core\ResolvingActivator.cs:line 69
With a full stack trace here: https://pastebin.com/0WkyHGKv
After close inspection of the stack trace, I can conclude what's going on: async.
The WcfOperationLifestyle under the covers depends on WCF's OperationContext.Current property, but this property has a thread-affinity and doesn't flow with async operations. This is something that has to be fixed in the integration library for Simple Injector; it simply doesn't support async at the moment.
Instead, wrap a decorator around your handlers that start and end a new async scope. This prevents you from having to use the WcfOperationLifestyle all together. Take a look at the ThreadScopedCommandHandlerProxy<T> implementation here to get an idea how to do this (but use AsyncScopedLifestyle instead).
I'm hosting my .NET 4.5 WCF services in IIS.
There's a piece of information called "BusinessContext" (BC) that is stored in the OperationContext.Current instance, so that any logic downstream can reach it.
Everything worked fine until I introduced async/await, and I ran into this issue. #stephen-cleary mentioned ASP.NET uses the async-friendly AspNetSynchronizationContext to keep the HttpContext.Current across threads. Since I'm hosting in IIS I figured I should be able to take advantage of the AspNetSyncCtx in WCF, and use the HttpContext.Current instead of the OperationContext to store the BC.
I created a WCF service from scratch, which has targetFramework = 4.5, aspnet:UseTaskFriendlySynchronizationContext = true and aspNetCompatibilityEnabled = true set by default in the Web.config. I also added the AspNetCompatibilityRequirements = Required to my service.
At runtime I see the HttpContext.Current is there, but SynchronizationContext.Current is null. After an await the HttpContext becomes null, which is expected because there's no SyncCtx. Shouldn't it be set to AspNetSyncCtx when aspcompatibility is required? How does the AspNetSyncCtx get set in ASP.NET?
-- Possible solution.
Following #Stephen-cleary's here I went ahead and defined a custom SynchronizationContext to preserve the OperationContext across threads.
I'd like to hear the community's input regarding this implementation. Thanks.
public class OperationContextSynchronizationContext : SynchronizationContext
{
public override void Post(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
OperationContext opCtx = OperationContext.Current;
InternalState internalState = new InternalState()
{
OpCtx = opCtx,
Callback = d,
State = state,
SyncCtx = this
};
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(InternalInvoker), internalState);
}
private void InternalInvoker(object internalState)
{
InternalState internalSt = internalState as InternalState;
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(internalSt.SyncCtx);
using (new OperationContextScope(internalSt.OpCtx))
{
internalSt.Callback.Invoke(internalSt.State);
}
}
private class InternalState
{
public SynchronizationContext SyncCtx { get; set; }
public OperationContext OpCtx { get; set; }
public SendOrPostCallback Callback { get; set; }
public object State { get; set; }
}
}
I ran into the issue (bug?) you mentioned where HttpContext.Current did not flow with async code in a WCF service hosted in IIS even with aspNetCompatiblity enabled and required.
I got my project working using the LogicalCallContext with CallContext.LogicalSetData and CallContext.LogicalGetData as described by Stephen Cleary in this blog post. I think setting/getting your business context thusly would work very well in your case and might be lighter weight and conceptually simpler than the custom SynchronizationContext. In your case you are having to Set your business context somewhere anyway ... might as well set it to the LogicalCallContext and I believe everything will be fine.
I'll explain my personal 'solution' in more detail, though I admit it is a bit hacky since I'm manually flowing the entire HttpContext object (and only in WCF methods). But again your case with your custom context object would seem to be a better fit.
In the ASP.NET web app I inherited, there were calls to HttpContext.Current littered throughout the business logic (not ideal). Obviously the project worked fine until I wanted several of the WCF methods in the app to be async.
A lot of the calls in the business logic would be from ASP.NET page loads, etc, where everything functions fine as it is.
I solved (kludged?) my problem in .NET 4.5 by creating a little helper class ContextHelper, and replaced all calls to HttpContext.Current with ContextHelper.CurrentHttpContext.
public class ContextHelper
{
public static void PrepareHttpContextFlow()
{
CallContext.LogicalSetData("CurrentHttpContext", HttpContext.Current);
}
public static HttpContext CurrentHttpContext
{
get
{
return HttpContext.Current ??
CallContext.LogicalGetData("CurrentHttpContext")
as HttpContext;
}
}
}
Now anytime the HttpContext.Current is defined, my helper method is essentially a no-op.
To make this work, the entry points for my WCF calls must call the PrepareHttpContextFlow method before the first call to await which is admittedly problematic and the main reason I consider this a kludge.
In my case this downside is mitigated by the fact that I have some OTHER manual calls required to add logical stack information for added error logging context that is lost when using async (since the physical stack information in an exception is not very useful for error logs in this case). So at least if I remember to do one of the "prepare for async" calls, I should remember to do the other :)
I've implemented Unit of Work/Repository pattern, as described here, but I'm also using autofac and constructor injection, so I registered UnitOfWork and DbContext (PsyProfContext) class like this:
builder.Register(context => new PsyProfContext()).InstancePerHttpRequest();
builder.RegisterType<UnitOfWork>().As<IUnitOfWork>().InstancePerHttpRequest();
And everything works great!
Except for one thing: I'm also using enterprise library logging block, and I have implemented CustomTraceListener which is using Entity Framework to write log entry into the database.
My controller looks like this (it is empty because at the moment I just tried to verify if all the things (IoC, logging, entity framework) are working):
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private readonly UnitOfWork unitOfWork;
public HomeController(IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
this.unitOfWork = (UnitOfWork) unitOfWork;
}
//
// GET: /Home/
public ActionResult Index()
{
throw new HttpException();
return View();
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
unitOfWork.Dispose();
base.Dispose(disposing);
}
}
And in the Write method of the CustomTraceListener class, I've tried to Resolve UnitOfWork:
DependencyResolver.Current.GetService<IUnitOfWork>() as UnitOfWork;
But I get an instance which is already disposed! so I've put some breakpoints and found out that Dispose method of the controller is called before the Write method of the CustomTraceListener class, so in the end I didn't found other solution than using DbContext (PsyProfContext) directly:
public override void Write(object o)
{
using (var conext = new PsyProfContext())
{
var customLogEntry = o as CustomLogEntry;
if (customLogEntry != null)
{
var logEntry = new LogEntry
{
//a bunch of properties
};
conext.Exceptions.Add(logEntry);
conext.SaveChanges();
}
}
}
But I don't like this solution! What's the point to use UnitOfWork and Repository pattern if you access DbContext object directly. Or what's the point in using DI in project if you create a registered object manually in some cases.
So I wanted to hear your opinion, about how to deal with this kind of situations? Is my current implementation fine, or it is definitely wrong and I should think about another one.
Any help will be greatly appreciated and any ideas are welcome!
It looks like you may have a couple of problems.
First, if you're manually disposing the unit of work object in your controller, your controller should take an Owned<IUnitOfWork> in the constructor. When the request lifetime is disposed it will automatically dispose of any IDisposable components - including the controller and any resolved dependencies - unless you specify somehow that you're going to take over ownership of the lifetime. You can do that by using Owned<T>.
public class HomeController : Controller
{
Owned<IUnitOfWork> _uow;
public HomeController(Owned<IUnitOfWork> uow)
{
this._uow = uow;
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if(disposing)
{
this._uow.Dispose();
}
base.Dispose(disposing);
}
}
(Note a minor logic fix in the Dispose override there - you need to check the value of disposing so you don't double-dispose your unit of work.)
Alternatively, you could register your units of work as ExternallyOwned, like
builder
.RegisterType<UnitOfWork>()
.As<IUnitOfWork>()
.ExternallyOwned()
.InstancePerHttpRequest();
ExternallyOwned also tells Autofac that you'll take control of disposal. In that case, your controller will look like it does already. (Generally I like to just let Autofac do the work, though, and not take ownership if I can avoid it.)
In fact, looking at the way things are set up, you might be able to avoid the disposal problem altogether if you let Autofac do the disposal for you - the call to DependencyResolver would return the unit of work that isn't disposed yet and it'd be OK.
If that doesn't fix it... you may want to add some detail to your question. I see where your controller is using the unit of work class, but I don't see where it logs anything, nor do I see anything in the listener implementation that's using the unit of work.
(Also, as noted in the first comment on your question, in the constructor of your controller you shouldn't be casting your service from IUnitOfWork to UnitOfWork - that's breaking the abstraction that the interface was offering in the first place.)