In structuremap you can control the lifeCycle of an object you register, normally some interface to a concrete type as follows:
x.For<IMyInterface>().Transient().Use<MyObject>();
So I can control the life cycle. However when resolving objects (Concrete) types that are not registered the life cycle defaults to what seems to be Transient().
This is obviously a convenient feature of structuremap as I surely dont want to register each concrete type.
However is there a way to override this life cycle without registration?
Furthermore it would be great if you can specify the life cycle of an object as an override much like:
ObjectFactory.With<SomeUnregisteredConcreteObject>().LifeCycleIs(...)
In such a case the life cycle would be modified for the next resolution to GetInstance
Any idea how any of this can be done?
You could create a child container & register the component:
var child = ObjectFactory.Container.CreateChildContainer();
child.Configure(config => config.For<SomeUnregisteredConcreteType>().Singleton());
var #object = child.GetInstance<...>();
I assume that the reason why you didn't want to register was because you didn't want the registration to hang around. I think this solves that problem.
I also don't know of built-in a way to specify a default lifecycle. However, I think it's probably possible using the IAutoMocker interface. You could probably browse through the code in that whole folder to figure out how to do it. The AutoMocking hooks into the container so that a component is requested that isn't registered, it calls into the IAutoMocker and gives it a chance to register a component. I imagine that you could use IAutoMocker to register components with a different default lifecycle.
If you succeed in this, I hope you send a pull request or write a blog post to share with the rest of us.
Related
The SignalR documentation has a part where it explains how to use .NET's DI to inject the IHubContext into a controller/middleware, but is there any way to get a reference to/instance of a Hub from just any plain class? Does it have to specifically be a service or whatever else the DI requires in order to make this work?
To give a very contrived (and possibly wrong) example: Say we have a TestHub and a static List<Whatever>. Whenever a client connects to TestHub, we create a new Whatever and add it to the static list. Each Whatever does one thing: asynchronously waits a random amount of time, and then somehow calls TestHub to send a message to all clients.
Now, this might completely be an architectural issue, seeing as the static List can just as well be a Singleton service that can use DI, but the idea is that the List doesn't govern when the messages are sent, instead the Whatever objects do that, with the random wait abstracting some nondeterministic logic.
If this scenario makes any sense, how can the Whatever call the TestHub?
If it doesn't, please let me know what I'm getting wrong. I'm very new to this, so I'm not really sure if the use case makes much sense in general.
Thanks in advance.
Nope, no statics allowed. Put the class in DI and inject the IHubContext is the way to go! You can also consider using a background service.
PS: Of course, you can create your own static but that's not a route I would recommend.
So, I have a viewmodel class in a xamarin project that I inject some dependencies into via ninject binding on app start. One of these is an IDialogService.
When my MainPage in my application changes it raises a property changed event and I rebind the implementation of the dialog service since it is tied to the MainPage.
If my viewmodel has already been created with lets say DialogServiceA and then when MainPage changes we rebind to DialogServiceB, will my viewmodel be using service A or B? I think it is using A and therefore does not display in the UI because it is tied to a MainPage that no longer exists.
So, if this is the case how can I dynamically change my dialog service but then update classes that have already been instantiated without changing everything to get the current dialog service from the container every time its used (therefore not injecting it at all really, and doing more of a servicelocator)
Also, if this approach is completely wrong, set me straight.
You're right. Re-configuration of the container does not affect already instanciated objects.
If you want to change dependencies without re-instanciating the dependent (parent ViewModel) there's a few possibilities for you:
use a factory to instanciate the service every time. Implement an Abstract Factory (Site by Mark Seeman) or use Ninject.Extensions.Factory to do so
instead of injecting a service directly, inject an adapter. The adapter then redirects the request to the currently appropriate service. To do so, either all service can be injected into the adapter, or you can use a factory as with the possibility above.
instead of inject a service directly, inject a proxy. The proxy is quite similar to the adapter, but instead of coding every method / property redirection specifically, you code a generic redirect by an interceptor. Here's a tutorial on castle dynamic proxy
At the end of the day, however, i believe you'll also need a way to manage when to change the service / which it should be. There's probably a design alternative which doesn't rely on exchanging objects in such a manner.. which would make it an easier (and thus better?) design.
Edit: i just saw that you also tagged the question as xamarin-forms. In that case it most likely won't be an option to use either a dynamic proxy nor ninject.extensions.factory (it relies on dynamic proxies, too). Why? dynamic proxy / IL emitting is not supported on all platforms, AFAIR specifically on Apple devices this can't be done.
I am using the NamedScoped Ninject extension in an attempt to create object graphs that are constructed everytime a command handler is constructed by the container. In other words, I want a fresh object graph for every command that might get processed by its corresponding handler.
I have used the .DefinesNamedScope("TopLevelOrhcestrator") binding when registering my "command handlers" as they are the top level for command processing.
A type in this named scope needs to be injected with the result of a method call on a type already registered in this named scope. I thought the best way to do this would be with a ninject provider.
Inside the provider I attempt to resolve the type in hopes I can call a method on it to pass into another object I am creating within this named scope. The problem I'm having is that when I ask the IContext for the instance inside the customer provider I get an exception that says "No matching scopes are available, and the type is declared InNamedScope(TopLevelOrchestrator).
context.Kernel.Get<TypeAlreadyRegisteredInScope>().MethodThatGetsAnotherDependency()
Is it possible to get types from the container inside a Ninject provider when they are registered inside a named scope?
EDIT
I apologize if the use case seems a bit odd, I am experimenting with some ideas about how to manage my units of work and other services/managers that may need a handle to the uow to complete a business usecase. I know its common for the unit of work to be "started" and then passed into all dependencies that may need to take part in a larger process. I was thinking I'd rather let my orchestrator take a unit of work factory so that it could deterministically destroy the UOW and it would be clear who the owner of a usecase is. What would get supplied to the managers/services would be a proxy to the unit of work that would be null until a real unit of work was started by the orchestrator. That's why I was attempting to link the proxy from the already registered type in my provider. This is all very experimental at this point and was testing some ideas.
I'd be happy to hear any further thoughts.
For MethodThatGetsAnotherDependency() to be able to .Get<>() an instance that is bound .InNamedScope(...) you will need to add the Context Preservation Extension.
This is because NamedScope is adding a parameter to the request context of the binding that has .DefinesNamedScope(...). As soon as that request is over, that context and it's parameters are forgotten. Now with the ContextPreservation extension the context is kept and reused for late / factory creations (Func<>, interface factory with .ToFactory() binding...). It think it should also work with providers.
If not, just switch to a factory instead of a provider.
However i have to admit that i don't fully understand why/what you are trying to achieve. There might be simpler ways.
I have a simple REST client that works well. In my application code I do something like this:
restClient = new RestClient(configurationData)
restClient.get('/person/1') //Get Person
restClient.get('/equipment/auto/3') //Get an Auto
restClient.get('/house/7') //Get a House
That works well but things are getting more complicated and I would like to divorce the application code from the specific resource locations.
I'd like to be able to write a wrapper around the service, which will store the resource locations and not require me to put them in my application code. I would expect my code to start looking more like this:
restClient = new RestClient(configurationData)
restClient.getPerson(1) //Get Person
restClient.getAuto(3) //Get an Auto
restClient.getHouse(7) //Get a House
I started adding these wrappers inside of my RestClient class but it got very bloated very fast, and it felt that the abstraction should be at a higher level. Mixing Resource-specifics with my client also felt wrong.
So, instead I subclassed RestClient, and each resource has its own class. The problem is that now I have to instantiate a new client for every different resource type:
personRestClient = new PersonRestClient(configurationData)
personRestClient.get(1);
autoRestClient = new AutoRestClient(configurationData)
autoRestClient.get(3);
housesRestClient = new HousesRestClient(configurationData)
housesRestClient.get(7);
But now I've created a new Client class for each Resource and I am fairly certain that is a very bad thing to do. It's also a pain because I have to tie my connection configuration data to each one, when this should only happen once.
Is there a good example or pattern I should be following when I want to write abstractions for my Resources? My base RestClient works fine but I dislike having to put the server-side API locations in my application code. But I also don't want to have to instantiate one specialized client class for each Resource I want to interact with.
I am in a similar situation, and have what I consider to be a good implementation with the appropriate abstractions. Whether my solution is the best practice or not, I cannot guarantee it, but it is fairly lightweight. Here is how I have it architected:
My UI layer needs to make calls into my REST service, so I created an abstraction called ServiceManagers.Interfaces.IAccountManager. The interface has methods called GetAccounts(Int64 userId).
Then I created a Rest.AccountManager that implemented this Interface, and injected that into my AccountController. The Rest.AccountManager is what wraps the REST specifics (URL, get/post/put..., parameters, etc).
So, now my UI code only has to call accountManager.GetAccounts(userId). You can create an all-encompassing interface so that you only have a Get, but I feel that is less expressive. It is ok to have many different interfaces for each component(ie: PersonManager, HouseManager, AutoManager), because each are a separate concern returning different data. Do not be afraid of having a lot of interfaces and classes, as long as your names are expressive.
In my example, my UI has a different manager for each controller, and the calls made fit each controller appropriately (ie. GetAccounts for AccountController, GetPeople for PeopleController).
Also, as to the root configuration data, you can just use a configurationCreationFactory class or something. That way all implementations have the appropriate configuration with the core logic in one location.
This can be a hard thing to explain, and I know I did not do a perfect job, but hopefully this helps a little. I will try to go back through and clean it up later, especially if you do not get my point :)
I am thinking something like this, again some way of mapping your end points to the client. You can have the mapping as an xml or a properties file which can be loaded and cached during the app start. The file should have key value pairs
PERSON_ENDPOINT=/person/
AUTO_ENDPOINT=/equipment/auto/...
The client should pass this key to the factory may be ClientFactory which has this xml cache and retrieves the end point from the cached file. The parameters can be passed to the factory as custom object or a map. The factory gives back the complete end point say "/person/1" which you can pass to your client. This way you dont need to have different classes for the client. If you dont like the xml or a file you can have it as a static map with key value pairs. If its an xml or file you dont need a code change every time that is the advantage.
Hope this helps you.
I have a WCF service application (actually, it uses WCF Web API preview 5) that intercepts each request and extracts several header values passed from the client. The idea is that the 'interceptor' will extract these values and setup a ClientContext object that is then globally available within the application for the duration of the request. The server is stateless, so the context is per-call.
My problem is that the application uses IoC (Unity) for dependency injection so there is no use of singleton's, etc. Any class that needs to use the context receives it via DI.
So, how do I 'dynamically' create a new context object for each request and make sure that it is used by the container for the duration of that request? I also need to be sure that it is completely thread-safe in that each request is truly using the correct instance.
UPDATE
So I realize as I look into the suggestions below that part of my problem is encapsulation. The idea is that the interface used for the context (IClientContext) contains only read-only properties so that the rest of the application code doesn't have the ability to make changes. (And in a team development environment, if the code allows it, someone will inevitably do it.)
As a result, in my message handler that intercepts the request, I can get an instance of the type implementing the interface from the container but I can't make use of it. I still want to only expose a read-only interface to all other code but need a way to set the property values. Any ideas?
I'm considering implementing two interfaces, one that provides read-only access and one that allows me to initialize the instance. Or casting the resolved object to a type that allows me to set the values. Unfortunately, this isn't fool-proof either but unless someone has a better idea, it might be the best I can do.
Read Andrew Oakley's Blog on WCF specific lifetime managers. He creates a UnityOperationContextLifetimeManager:
we came up with the idea to build a Unity lifetime manager tied to
WCF's OperationContext. That way, our container objects would live
only for the lifetime of the request...
Configure your context class with that lifetime manager and then just resolve it. It should give you an "operation singleton".
Sounds like you need a Unity LifetimeManager. See this SO question or this MSDN article.