Looking for a Ninject scope that behaves like InRequestScope - ninject

On my service layer I have injected an UnitOfWork and 2 repositories in the constructor. The Unit of Work and repository have an instance of a DbContext I want to share between the two of them. How can I do that with Ninject ? Which scope should be considered ?
I am not in a web application so I can't use InRequestScope.
I try to do something similar... and I am using DI however, I need my UoW to be Disposed and created like this.
using (IUnitOfWork uow = new UnitOfWorkFactory.Create())
{
_testARepository.Insert(a);
_testBRepository.Insert(b);
uow.SaveChanges();
}
EDIT: I just want to be sure i understand… after look at https://github.com/ninject/ninject.extensions.namedscope/wiki/InNamedScope i though about my current console application architecture which actually use Ninject.
Lets say :
Class A is a Service layer class
Class B is an unit of work which take into parameter an interface (IContextFactory)
Class C is a repository which take into parameter an interface (IContextFactory)
The idea here is to be able to do context operations on 2 or more repository and using the unit of work to apply the changes.
Class D is a context factory (Entity Framework) which provide an instance (keep in a container) of the context which is shared between Class B et C (.. and would be for other repositories aswell).
The context factory keep the instance in his container so i don’t want to reuse this instance all the name since the context need to be disposed at the end of the service operaiton.. it is the main purpose of the InNamedScope actually ?
The solution would be but i am not sure at all i am doing it right, the services instance gonna be transcient which mean they actually never disposed ? :
Bind<IScsContextFactory>()
.To<ScsContextFactory>()
.InNamedScope("ServiceScope")
.WithConstructorArgument(
"connectionString",
ConfigurationUtility.GetConnectionString());
Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<ScsUnitOfWork>();
Bind<IAccountRepository>().To<AccountRepository>();
Bind<IBlockedIpRepository>().To<BlockedIpRepository>();
Bind<IAccountService>().To<AccountService>().DefinesNamedScope("ServiceScope");
Bind<IBlockedIpService>().To<BlockedIpService>().DefinesNamedScope("ServiceScope");

UPDATE: This approach works against NuGet current, but relies in an anomaly in the InCallscope implementation which has been fixed in the current Unstable NuGet packages. I'll be tweaking this answer in a few days to reflect the best approach after some mulling over. NB the high level way of structuring stuff will stay pretty much identical, just the exact details of the Bind<DbContext>() scoping will work. (Hint: CreateNamedScope in unstable would work or one could set up the Command Handler as DefinesNamedScope. Reason I dont just do that is that I want to have something that composes/plays well with InRequestScope)
I highly recommend reading the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope integration tests (seriously, find them and read and re-read them)
The DbContext is a Unit Of Work so no further wrapping is necessary.
As you want to be able to have multiple 'requests' in flight and want to have a single Unit of Work shared between them, you need to:
Bind<DbContext>()
.ToMethod( ctx =>
new DbContext(
connectionStringName: ConfigurationUtility.GetConnectionString() ))
.InCallScope();
The InCallScope() means that:
for a given object graph composed for a single kernel.Get() Call (hence In Call Scope), everyone that requires an DbContext will get the same instance.
the IDisposable.Dispose() will be called when a Kernel.Release() happens for the root object (or a Kernel.Components.Get<ICache>().Clear() happens for the root if it is not .InCallScope())
There should be no reason to use InNamedScope() and DefinesNamedScope(); You don't have long-lived objects you're trying to exclude from the default pooling / parenting / grouping.
If you do the above, you should be able to:
var command = kernel.Get<ICommand>();
try {
command.Execute();
} finally {
kernel.Components.Get<ICache>().Clear( command ); // Dispose of DbContext happens here
}
The Command implementation looks like:
class Command : ICommand {
readonly IAccountRepository _ar;
readonly IBlockedIpRepository _br;
readonly DbContext _ctx;
public Command(IAccountRepository ar, IBlockedIpRepository br, DbContext ctx){
_ar = ar;
_br = br;
_ctx = ctx;
}
void ICommand.Execute(){
_ar.Insert(a);
_br.Insert(b);
_ctx.saveChanges();
}
}
Note that in general, I avoid having an implicit Unit of Work in this way, and instead surface it's creation and Disposal. This makes a Command look like this:
class Command : ICommand {
readonly IAccountService _as;
readonly IBlockedIpService _bs;
readonly Func<DbContext> _createContext;
public Command(IAccountService #as, IBlockedIpServices bs, Func<DbContext> createContext){
_as = #as;
_bs = bs;
_createContext = createContext;
}
void ICommand.Execute(){
using(var ctx = _createContext()) {
_ar.InsertA(ctx);
_br.InsertB(ctx);
ctx.saveChanges();
}
}
This involves no usage of .InCallScope() on the Bind<DbContext>() (but does require the presence of Ninject.Extensions.Factory's FactoryModule to synthesize the Func<DbContext> from a straightforward Bind<DbContext>().

As discussed in the other answer, InCallScope is not a good approach to solving this problem.
For now I'm dumping some code that works against the latest NuGet Unstable / Include PreRelease / Instal-Package -Pre editions of Ninject.Web.Common without a clear explanation. I will translate this to an article in the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope wiki at some stagehave started to write a walkthrough of this technique in the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope wiki's CreateNamedScope/GetScope article.
Possibly some bits will become Pull Request(s) at some stage too (Hat tip to #Remo Gloor who supplied me the outline code). The associated tests and learning tests are in this gist for now), pending packaging in a proper released format TBD.
The exec summary is you Load the Module below into your Kernel and use .InRequestScope() on everything you want created / Disposed per handler invocation and then feed requests through via IHandlerComposer.ComposeCallDispose.
If you use the following Module:
public class Module : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IHandlerComposer>().To<NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer>();
// Wire it up so InRequestScope will work for Handler scopes
Bind<INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory>().To<NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory>();
NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory.NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.RegisterIn( Kernel );
}
}
Which wires in a Factory[1] and NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin that exposes:
public interface INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory
{
NamedScope CreateRequestHandlerScope();
}
Then you can use this Composer to Run a Request InRequestScope():
public interface IHandlerComposer
{
void ComposeCallDispose( Type type, Action<object> callback );
}
Implemented as:
class NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer : IHandlerComposer
{
readonly INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory _requestHandlerScopeFactory;
public NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer( INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory requestHandlerScopeFactory )
{
_requestHandlerScopeFactory = requestHandlerScopeFactory;
}
void IHandlerComposer.ComposeCallDispose( Type handlerType, Action<object> callback )
{
using ( var resolutionRoot = _requestHandlerScopeFactory.CreateRequestHandlerScope() )
foreach ( object handler in resolutionRoot.GetAll( handlerType ) )
callback( handler );
}
}
The Ninject Infrastructure stuff:
class NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory : INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory
{
internal const string ScopeName = "Handler";
readonly IKernel _kernel;
public NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory( IKernel kernel )
{
_kernel = kernel;
}
NamedScope INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory.CreateRequestHandlerScope()
{
return _kernel.CreateNamedScope( ScopeName );
}
/// <summary>
/// When plugged in as a Ninject Kernel Component via <c>RegisterIn(IKernel)</c>, makes the Named Scope generated during IHandlerFactory.RunAndDispose available for use via the Ninject.Web.Common's <c>.InRequestScope()</c> Binding extension.
/// </summary>
public class NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin : NinjectComponent, INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin
{
readonly IKernel kernel;
public static void RegisterIn( IKernel kernel )
{
kernel.Components.Add<INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin, NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin>();
}
public NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin( IKernel kernel )
{
this.kernel = kernel;
}
object INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.GetRequestScope( IContext context )
{
// TODO PR for TrgGetScope
try
{
return NamedScopeExtensionMethods.GetScope( context, ScopeName );
}
catch ( UnknownScopeException )
{
return null;
}
}
void INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.Start()
{
}
void INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.Stop()
{
}
}
}

Related

How do I mock Func<T> factory dependency to return different objects using AutoMock?

I'm trying to write a test for a class that has a constructor dependency on Func<T>. In order to complete successfully the function under test needs to create a number of separate objects of type T.
When running in production, AutoFac generates a new T every time factory() is called, however when writing a test using AutoMock it returns the same object when it is called again.
Test case below showing the difference in behaviour when using AutoFac and AutoMock. I'd expect both of these to pass, but the AutoMock one fails.
public class TestClass
{
private readonly Func<TestDep> factory;
public TestClass(Func<TestDep> factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public TestDep Get()
{
return factory();
}
}
public class TestDep
{}
[TestMethod()]
public void TestIt()
{
using var autoMock = AutoMock.GetStrict();
var testClass = autoMock.Create<TestClass>();
var obj1 = testClass.Get();
var obj2 = testClass.Get();
Assert.AreNotEqual(obj1, obj2);
}
[TestMethod()]
public void TestIt2()
{
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterSource(new AnyConcreteTypeNotAlreadyRegisteredSource());
var container = builder.Build();
var testClass = container.Resolve<TestClass>();
var obj1 = testClass.Get();
var obj2 = testClass.Get();
Assert.AreNotEqual(obj1, obj2);
}
AutoMock (from the Autofac.Extras.Moq package) is primarily useful for setting up complex mocks. Which is to say, you have a single object with a lot of dependencies and it's really hard to set that object up because it doesn't have a parameterless constructor. Moq doesn't let you set up objects with constructor parameters by default, so having something that fills the gap is useful.
However, the mocks you get from it are treated like any other mock you might get from Moq. When you set up a mock instance with Moq, you're not getting a new one every time unless you also implement the factory logic yourself.
AutoMock is not for mocking Autofac behavior. The Func<T> support where Autofac calls a resolve operation on every call to the Func<T> - that's Autofac, not Moq.
It makes sense for AutoMock to use InstancePerLifetimeScope because, just like setting up mocks with plain Moq, you need to be able to get the mock instance back to configure it and validate against it. It would be much harder if it was new every time.
Obviously there are ways to work around that, and with a non-trivial amount of breaking changes you could probably implement InstancePerDependency semantics in there, but there's really not much value in doing that at this point since that's not really what this is for... and you could always create two different AutoMock instances to get two different mocks.
A much better way to go, in general, is to provide useful abstractions and use Autofac with mocks in the container.
For example, say you have something like...
public class ThingToTest
{
public ThingToTest(PackageSender sender) { /* ... */ }
}
public class PackageSender
{
public PackageSender(AddressChecker checker, DataContext context) { /* ... */ }
}
public class AddressChecker { }
public class DataContext { }
If you're trying to set up ThingToTest, you can see how also setting up a PackageSender is going to be complex, and you'd likely want something like AutoMock to handle that.
However, you can make your life easier by introducing an interface there.
public class ThingToTest
{
public ThingToTest(IPackageSender sender) { /* ... */ }
}
public interface IPackageSender { }
public class PackageSender : IPackageSender { }
By hiding all the complexity behind the interface, you now can mock just IPackageSender using plain Moq (or whatever other mocking framework you like, or even creating a manual stub implementation). You wouldn't even need to include Autofac in the mix because you could mock the dependency directly and pass it in.
Point being, you can design your way into making testing and setup easier, which is why, in the comments on your question, I asked why you were doing things that way (which, at the time of this writing, never did get answered). I would strongly recommend designing things to be easier to test if possible.

Autofac.Multitenant in an aspnet core application does not seem to resolve tenant scoped dependencies correctly

I'm in the process of upgrading a Multitenant dotnet core solution which utilises the Autofac.Multitenant framework. I'm not having a lot of luck getting tenancy resolution working correctly. I've created a simple demonstration of the problem here: https://github.com/SaltyDH/AutofacMultitenancy1
This repo demonstrates registering a InstancePerTenant scoped dependency TestMultitenancyContext which is resolved in the Home Controller. Due to issues with using IHttpContextAccessor, I'm using a custom RequestMiddleware class to capture the current HttpContext object so that I can perform logic on the current HttpContext request object in the MultitenantIdentificationStrategy.
Finally, TestFixture provides a simple xUnit test which, at least on my machine returns "tenant1" for both tenants.
Is there something I've missed here or is this just not currently working?
UPDATE 10/6/2017: We released Autofac.AspNetCore.Multitenant to wrap up the solution to this in a more easy to consume package. I'll leave the original answer/explanation here for posterity, but if you're hitting this you can go grab that package and move on.
I think you're running into a timing issue.
If you pop open the debugger on the HttpContext in the middleware you can see that there's a RequestServicesFeature object on a property called ServiceProvidersFeature. That's what's responsible for creating the per-request scope. The scope gets created the first time it's accessed.
It appears that the order goes roughly like this:
The WebHostBuilder adds a startup filter to enable request services to be added to the pipeline.
The startup filter, AutoRequestServicesStartupFilter, adds middleware to the very beginning of the pipeline to trigger the creation of request services.
The middleware that gets added, RequestServicesContainerMiddleware, basically just invokes the RequestServices property from the ServiceProvidersFeature to trigger creation of the per-request lifetime scope. However, in its constructor is where it gets the IServiceScopeFactory that it uses to create the request scope, which isn't so great because it'll be created from the root container before a tenant can be established.
All that yields a situation where the per-request scope has already been determined to be for the default tenant and you can't really change it.
To work around this, you need to set up request services yourself such that they account for multitenancy.
It sounds worse than it is.
First, we need a reference to the application container. We need the ability to resolve something from application-level services rather than request services. I did that by adding a static property to your Startup class and keeping the container there.
public static IContainer ApplicationContainer { get; private set; }
Next, we're going to change your middleware to look more like the RequestServicesContainerMiddleware. You need to set the HttpContext first so your tenant ID strategy works. After that, you can get an IServiceScopeFactory and follow the same pattern they do in RequestServicesContainerMiddleware.
public class RequestMiddleware
{
private static readonly AsyncLocal<HttpContext> _context = new AsyncLocal<HttpContext>();
private readonly RequestDelegate _next;
public RequestMiddleware(RequestDelegate next)
{
this._next = next;
}
public static HttpContext Context => _context.Value;
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext context)
{
_context.Value = context;
var existingFeature = context.Features.Get<IServiceProvidersFeature>();
using (var feature = new RequestServicesFeature(Startup.ApplicationContainer.Resolve<IServiceScopeFactory>()))
{
try
{
context.Features.Set<IServiceProvidersFeature>(feature);
await this._next.Invoke(context);
}
finally
{
context.Features.Set(existingFeature);
_context.Value = null;
}
}
}
}
Now you need a startup filter to get your middleware in there. You need a startup filter because otherwise the RequestServicesContainerMiddleware will run too early in the pipeline and things will already start resolving from the wrong tenant scope.
public class RequestStartupFilter : IStartupFilter
{
public Action<IApplicationBuilder> Configure(Action<IApplicationBuilder> next)
{
return builder =>
{
builder.UseMiddleware<RequestMiddleware>();
next(builder);
};
}
}
Add the startup filter to the very start of the services collection. You need your startup filter to run before AutoRequestServicesStartupFilter.
The ConfigureServices ends up looking like this:
public IServiceProvider ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.Insert(0, new ServiceDescriptor(typeof(IStartupFilter), typeof(RequestStartupFilter), ServiceLifetime.Transient));
services.AddMvc();
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<TestMultitenancyContext>().InstancePerTenant();
builder.Populate(services);
var container = new MultitenantContainer(new MultitenantIdentificationStrategy(), builder.Build());
ApplicationContainer = container;
return new AutofacServiceProvider(container);
}
Note the Insert call in there to jam your service registration at the top, before their startup filter.
The new order of operations will be:
At app startup...
Your startup filter will add your custom request services middleware to the pipeline.
The AutoRequestServicesStartupFilter will add the RequestServicesContainerMiddleware to the pipeline.
During a request...
Your custom request middleware will set up request services based on the inbound request information.
The RequestServicesContainerMiddleware will see that request services are already set up and will do nothing.
When services are resolved, the request service scope will already be the tenant scope as set up by your custom request middleware and the correct thing will show up.
I tested this locally by switching the tenant ID to come from querystring rather than host name (so I didn't have to set up hosts file entries and all that jazz) and I was able to switch tenant by switching querystring parameters.
Now, you may be able to simplify this a bit. For example, you may be able to get away without a startup filter by doing something directly to the web host builder in the Program class. You may be able to register your startup filter right with the ContainerBuilder before calling builder.Populate and skip that Insert call. You may be able to store the IServiceProvider in the Startup class property if you don't like having Autofac spread through the system. You may be able to get away without a static container property if you create the middleware instance and pass the container in as a constructor parameter yourself. Unfortunately, I already spent a loooot of time trying to figure out the workaround so I'm going to have to leave "optimize it" as an exercise for the reader.
Again, sorry this wasn't clear. I've filed an issue on your behalf to get the docs updated and maybe figure out a better way to do this that's a little more straightforward.
I have an alternate solution, related to work I've done on a pending PR on the Autofac DI extension. The solution there can't be used exactly, because it depends on classes that are (rightly) internal. It can be adapted by providing shims that reproduce the functionality in those classes. Since they are compact, this doesn't require the addition of a lot of code. Until the functionality is fixed, this is the solution I'm using.
The other aspect of the solution is to eschew the custom middleware and instead make the ITenantIdentificationStrategy a service that can take any dependency required to do what it needs to.
Fixing the DI
The "DI" side of the problem is that the Autofac DI extension uses resolution to supply IServiceProvider and IServiceScopeFactory implementations. This is possible, because under the hood these are IComponentContext and ILifetimeScope (which are themselves different interfaces for the same thing). In most cases this works fine, but ASP.NET Core proceeds by resolving a singleton IServiceScopeFactory very early in the application cycle. In a multi-tenant scenario this resolution will return the ILifetimeScope for either the first tenant requested, or for the "default" tenant, and that will be the root scope (as far as MS DI is concerned) for the application lifetime. (See the PR for further discussion.)
The classes below implement an alternate behavior: instead of resolving the DI interfaces, it builds (news-up) the initially-requested ones from the IContainer directly. With the initial IServiceScopeFactory based directly on IContainer, further scope requests will resolve correctly.
public class ContainerServiceProvider : IServiceProvider, ISupportRequiredService
{
private readonly IContainer container;
public ContainerServiceProvider(IContainer container)
{
this.container = container;
}
public object GetRequiredService(Type serviceType)
{
if (TryGetContainer(serviceType, out object containerSvc)) return containerSvc;
else return container.Resolve(serviceType);
}
public object GetService(Type serviceType)
{
if (TryGetContainer(serviceType, out object containerSvc)) return containerSvc;
else return container.ResolveOptional(serviceType);
}
bool TryGetContainer(Type serviceType, out object containerSvc)
{
if (serviceType == typeof(IServiceProvider)) { containerSvc = this; return true; }
if (serviceType == typeof(IServiceScopeFactory)) { containerSvc = new ContainerServiceScopeFactory(container); return true; }
else { containerSvc = null; return false; }
}
}
// uses IContainer, but could use copy of AutofacServiceScopeFactory
internal class ContainerServiceScopeFactory : IServiceScopeFactory
{
private IContainer container;
public ContainerServiceScopeFactory(IContainer container)
{
this.container = container;
}
public IServiceScope CreateScope()
{
return new BecauseAutofacsIsInternalServiceScope(container.BeginLifetimeScope());
}
}
// direct copy of AutofacServiceScope
internal class BecauseAutofacsIsInternalServiceScope : IServiceScope
{
private readonly ILifetimeScope _lifetimeScope;
/// <summary>
/// Initializes a new instance of the <see cref="AutofacServiceScope"/> class.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="lifetimeScope">
/// The lifetime scope from which services should be resolved for this service scope.
/// </param>
public BecauseAutofacsIsInternalServiceScope(ILifetimeScope lifetimeScope)
{
this._lifetimeScope = lifetimeScope;
this.ServiceProvider = this._lifetimeScope.Resolve<IServiceProvider>();
}
/// <summary>
/// Gets an <see cref="IServiceProvider" /> corresponding to this service scope.
/// </summary>
/// <value>
/// An <see cref="IServiceProvider" /> that can be used to resolve dependencies from the scope.
/// </value>
public IServiceProvider ServiceProvider { get; }
/// <summary>
/// Disposes of the lifetime scope and resolved disposable services.
/// </summary>
public void Dispose()
{
this._lifetimeScope.Dispose();
}
}
Fixing Identification Strategy
As for making the identification-strategy a service, I would rework your implementation like so:
public class MultitenantIdentificationStrategy : ITenantIdentificationStrategy
{
public const string DefaultTenantId = null;
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor contextaccessor;
public MultitenantTenantIdentificationStrategy(IHttpContextAccessor contextaccessor)
{
this.contextaccessor = contextaccessor;
}
public bool TryIdentifyTenant(out object tenantId)
{
var context = contextaccessor.HttpContext;
// after this is unchanged
.
.
}
.
.
}
Use in Startup.ConfigureServices
This shows the fragment of how these last few pieces are registered and fed to MS DI for ASP.NET.
. . .
builder.RegisterType<MultitenantIdentificationStrategy>().AsImplementedInterfaces(); // tenant identification
// register do Autofac DI integration
builder.Populate(services);
var underlyingcontainer = builder.Build();
ApplicationContainer = new MultitenantContainer(underlyingcontainer.Resolve<ITenantIdentificationStrategy>(), underlyingContainer);
return new ContainerServiceProvider(ApplicationContainer);
If you find this solution workable, please give a thumbs up to DI PR 10--or PR 11, if after reviewing you think that is the better/more elegant solution. Either will save having to add the "shim" code above.

How to correctly dispose objects registered with Autofac

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.)

What is the correct way to use Unit of Work/Repositories within the business layer?

Having built a small application using the Unit of Work/Repository pattern, I am struggling to understand how to use this properly within my business layer. My application has a a data access layer which can be either NHibernate or the Entity Framework. I can switch between these easily.
I have a number of repositories, for example, Customer, Order etc. My unit of work will be either an ISession or an Object Context depending on which DAL I want to test with.
My business layer contains a single business method - CreateOrder(). What I am struggling to understand is where in the business layer I should be initialising my unit of work and my repositories.
Focusing on Nhibernate, my DAL looks like:
public class NHibernateDAL : IUnitOfWork
{
log4net.ILog log = log4net.LogManager.GetLogger(typeof(NHibernateDAL));
ISession context;
public NHibernateDAL()
{
context = SessionProvider.OpenSession();
this.Context.BeginTransaction();
CurrentSessionContext.Bind(context);
}
public ISession Context
{
get { return context; }
}
public void Commit()
{
this.Context.Transaction.Commit();
context.Close();
}
public void Dispose()
{
ISession session = CurrentSessionContext.Unbind(SessionProvider.SessionFactory);
session.Close();
}
}
Within my business layer, I want to know where I should be declaring my Unit of Work and repositories. Are they declared at class level or within the CreateOrder method?
For example:
public class BusinessLogic
{
UnitOfWork _unitOfWork = new UnitOfWork(NHibernateDAL);
NhRepository<Order> _orderRepository = new NhRepository<Order>(_unitOfWork);
NhRepository<Customer> _customerRepository = new NhRepository<Customer>(_unitOfWork);
....
public void CreateOrder(.....)
{
Order order = new Order();
_orderRepository.Add(order);
_unitOfWork.Commit();
}
}
The above code works only for the first time the CreateOrder() method is called, but not for subsequent calls because the session is closed. I have tried removing the 'context.Close()' call after committing the transaction but this also fails. Although the above approach doesn't work, it seems more correct to me to declare my repositories and unit of work with this scope.
However, if I implement it as below instead it works fine, but it seems unnatural to declare the repositories and unit of work within the scope of the method itself. If I had a tonne of business methods then I would be declaring repositories and Units of Work all over the place:
public class BusinessLogic
{
public void CreateOrder(.....)
{
UnitOfWork _unitOfWork = new UnitOfWork(NHibernateDAL);
var _orderRepository = new NhRepository<Order>(_unitOfWork);
NhRepository<Customer> _customerRepository = null;
Order order = new Order();
_orderRepository.Add(order);
_unitOfWork.Commit();
}
}
If I were to implement this with class level declaration then I think I would need some means of re-opening the same unit of work at the start of the CreateOrder method.
What is the correct way to use the unit of work and repositories within the business layer?
Looks to me like you've almost got it. In our new server stack I have this setup:
WCF Service Layer --> just returns results from my Business Layer
My business layer is called, creates a unitofwork, creates the respository
Calls the respository function
Uses AutoMapper to move returned results into a DTO
My repository gets the query results and populates a composite object.
Looks almost like what you've got there. Though we use Unity to locate what you call the business layer. (we just call it our function processor)
What I would highly suggest, though, is that you do NOT keep the UnitOfWork at the class level. After all each descreet function is a unit of work. So mine is like this (the names have been changed to protect the innocent):
using ( UnitOfWorkScope scope = new UnitOfWorkScope( TransactionMode.Default ) )
{
ProcessRepository repository = new ProcessRepository( );
CompositionResultSet result = repository.Get( key );
scope.Commit( );
MapData( );
return AutoMapper.Mapper.Map<ProcessSetDTO>( result );
}
We also had a long discussion on when to do a scope.Commit and while it isn't needed for queries, it establishes a consistent pattern for every function in the application layer. BTW we are using NCommon for our repository/unitofwork patterns and do not have to pass the UoW to the repository.
Your IUnitOfWork implementation contains all repositories.
Your IUnitOfWork is injected into your presentation layer like mvc controller.
Your IUnitOfWork is injected into mvc controller.
Your IRepository is injected into your UnitOfWork implementation.

Create an instance of ISession per ViewModel

here is my problem: I'm building a desktop application, with the following tools:
Caliburn
Ninject
NHibernate
All my view models and repositories are instanciated with Ninject. My repositories all need an ISession in their constructor.
I'd like to follow ayende's advice concerning the ViewModels: each ViewModel opens a new session.
Is it possible to configure Ninject to open a new session when a ViewModel is created, and use this session inside the repositories used by this view model?
I had a look to the InScope function of Ninject, as well as the ICurrentSessionContext interface in NHibernate, but I don't know how to model all of that to get what I want...
Did someone make something like that before?
Thanks in advance
Mike
I solved a similar scenario leveraging the ViewModel lifecycle: I created an ISessionAware interface (with a SetSession method) to be implemented by repositories, then I initialized the repositories through ISessionAware in the OnInitialize method of the ViewModel (which is enforced by Caliburn when the VM is managed by a ScreenConductor).
Using reflection to inspect the properties holding the repositories, I could put all the infrastructure on a BaseDataVM class.
Using a scope in the container would be more elegant, I think, but I don't know Ninject.
I have a very similar project (except I'm not using Caliburn) and have been trying to figure out how to do this as well. I did come up with one method that works well for constructor injection using Ninject's InScope() method.
I have a static class called IoC that wraps access to Ninject's kernel. Since the dependencies are all injected into the constructor, the context is only relevant when the object is being created. So it doesn't matter what is supplied for context, but a Guid feels like the safe choice. Program.OpenSession() is a static method to open a new ISession.
public static class Ioc
{
private static readonly IKernel _kernel;
static IoC()
{
_kernel = new StandardKernel();
_kernel.Load(new ContextModule());
}
private static object _context;
public static T ResolveInContext<T>(object context)
{
_context = context;
var result = _kernel.Get<T>();
_context = null;
return result;
}
private class ContextModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<ISession>().ToMethod(x => Program.OpenSession()).InScope(x => _context);
Bind<frmCompanyViewer>().ToSelf().InScope(x => _context);
}
}
}
Usage is:
var frm = IoC.ResolveInContext<frmCompanyViewer>(Guid.NewGuid());
The form's constructor signature is:
public frmCompanyViewer(ISession session, ICompanyRepository companyRepository)
I verified that with InScope on the bindings, the same ISession that is used to construct frmCompanyViewer is also used to construct companyRepository. If I remove InScope then two ISessions are used.
Edited to add: This would also work, see comments. This should be made thread safe for a real application. I changed the method name to ConstructInContext to clarify that the context only applies during object construction.
public static T ConstructInContext<T>()
{
_context = Guid.NewGuid();
var result = _kernel.Get<T>();
_context = null;
return result;
}
We have this with AOP, in unhaddins.
Is called "Conversation per Business Transaction".
search in google
here you have ;)
http://groups.google.com/group/unhaddins/browse_thread/thread/29eca74a83df5faf/d9fab4062d4cb4c4?lnk=gst&q=ninject#d9fab4062d4cb4c4
Well, I've found a solution thanks to the ninject group.
The solution here is to use the function InScope when I bind ISession, and browse in the IContext variable to inspect the services. If one service in the request hierarchy is assignable to the base class of my view models, I use the context as scope.
So the first time an ISession will be injected in the constructor of my ViewModel, a new scope is used. And all subsequent calls to ISession inside the constructor of the ViewModel will be resolved with the same scope. And then only one session is created for my ViewModel.
Here is the code:
Bind<ISession>().ToMethod(ctx =>
{
var session = ctx.Kernel.Get<INHibernateSessionFactoryBuilder>()
.GetSessionFactory()
.OpenSession();
session.FlushMode = FlushMode.Commit;
return session;
})
.InScope(ctx =>
{
var request = ctx.Request;
if (request.Service is IScreen)
return request;
while ((request = request.ParentRequest) != null)
if (typeof(IScreen).IsAssignableFrom(request.Service))
return request;
return new object();
});
And the constructor of the viewmodel must contains all the injected dependencies which rely on the ISession:
[Inject]
public PlayersManagementViewModel(ISession session, IPlayersRepository playersRepository)
{
}
Hope that helps