Problem:
I am building a four layer system with Ui, ServiceLayer, BizLayer and DataLayer. In line with good practice the ServiceLayer hides the BizLayer and DataLayer from the Ui, and of course the ServiceLayer doesn't know what the Ui Layer is.
My implementation is a single .NET application with each layer in its own assembly. I am using Autofac.MVC3 in my MVC3 Ui layer to do all the resolving classes used in a web request. I also include standard Autofac in my ServiceLayer so that it can handle the registration of all other layers in my application. At system startup I call a method to register all the types with Autofac. This does:
Register the lower levels by calling a module inside the ServiceLayer. That handles the registration of itself and all other assemblies using the standard NuGet Autofac package.
Then the Ui layer uses the NuGet Autofac.MVC package to register the various controllers and the IActionInvoker for Action Method injection.
My UnitOfWork class in my DataLayer is currently registered with InstancePerLifetimeScope because it is registered by the ServiceLayer which uses plain Autofac and knows nothing about InstancePerHttpRequest. However I read here that I should use InstancePerHttpRequest scope.
Question:
My question is, can I pass a lifetime scope around, i.e. could the MVC layer pass the InstancePerHttpRequest down to the service layer to use where needed? Alex Meyer-Gleaves seemed to suggest this was possible in his comment from this post below:
It is also possible to pass your own ILifetimeScopeProvider implementation to the AutofacDependencyResolver so that you can control the creation of lifetime scopes outside of the ASP.NET runtime
However the way he suggests seems to be MVC specific as ILifetimeScopeProvider is a MVC extension class. Can anyone suggest another way or is InstancePerLifetimeScope OK?
InstancePerHttpRequestScope is in fact a variant of InstantPerLifetimeScope. The first one only works in a request. If you want to execute some stuff on a background thread, it won't be available.
Like you I'm using autofac in as.net mvc and multiple app layers. I pass around the Container itself for the cases where I need to have a lifetime scope. I have a background queue which executes tasks. Each taks pretty much needs to have its own scope and to be exdecuted in a transaction. The Queue has an instance of IContainer (which is a singleton) and for every task, it begins a new scope and executes the task.
Db access and all are setup as INstancePerLifetimeScope in order to work in this case and I don't have aproblem when I use them in a controller.
With the help of MikeSW, Cecil Philips and Travis Illig (thanks guys) I have been put on the right track. My reading of the various posts, especially Alex Meyer-Gleaves post here, it seems that InstancePerLifetimeScope is treated as InstancePerHttpRequest when resolved by the Autofac.MVC package, within certain limitations (read Alex's post for what those limitations they). Alex's comment is:
Using InstancePerHttpRequest ensures that the service is resolved from the correct lifetime scope at runtime. In the case of MVC this is always the special HTTP request lifetime scope.
This means that I can safely register anything that needs a single instance for the whole htpp request as InstancePerLifetimeScope and it will work fine as long as I don't have child scoped items. That is fine and I can work with that.
Related
I am working to add the Hystrix CircuitBreaker pattern to an existing ASP.NET Core microservice, using Steeltoe CircuitBreaker, while maintaining the existing logging functionality with minimal refactoring (or as little as I can hope for).
Currently, an incoming HTTP request goes through the following layers:
Controller -> Service -> DerivedProvider -> AbstractProvider (and out to downstream service)
with Hystrix, I would like it to be:
Controller -> Service -> HystrixCommand<> -> DerviedProvider (via HystrixCommand's ExecuteAsync) -> AbstractProvider
Lots of context is stored in the providers, which is passed down through the layers via constructors, and logging is then happening in the AbstractProvider using that context, regardless of the outgoing call's result. The AbstractProvider also supports a fair amount of custom logic, such as optional pre and post execution callbacks. The post callback is invoked when a non-success response message is returned. Needless to say, changing the layers drastically doesn't appear easy to me, with my current understanding.
After reviewing the Hystrix documentation and Steeltoe CircuitBreaker documentation I am unclear if I can maintain, and access, the provider and its context within the HystrixCommand<>.RunFallbackAsync().
Perhaps the answer might relate to the lifecycle hooks you can override? Like onFallbackStart(HystrixInvokable commandInstance?
Ultimately, the goal is simply to make sure that any existing callback/logging functionality is not lost by wrapping these existing providers in a HystrixCommand. I am failing to understand how the HystrixCommand manages the providers and its context, and when/where you do or do not have access to them. Any suggestions or direction you can offer would be very much appreciated! Cheers!
Hystrix commands can be added to the service container or can be "new'd" (i.e. new MyHystrixCommand(...) whichever makes the most sense for you situation.
Remember that Hystrix commands can not be reused .. i.e. once you create and execute the command you must not try and reuse it.
Clearly if you are new'ng the HystrixCommand then you can define whatever arguments you want in the constructor and supply it with the right arguments (i.e. state) it needs to execute.
If you are injecting it into a controller or another service.. then before you use it... you can initialize it with whatever state you want using properties and then execute it.
My team maintains a very large .Net Core 2.1 web site. Lots of controllers, lots of services that get injected into the controllers via constructor injection.
Sometimes due to developer error a service class is no longer added to the DI container during startup. Obviously this leads to an exception when MVC tries to construct a controller that relies on that service (in response to an incoming request).
Problem is that this may affect only some lightly used controller, so our (far from perfect) regression testing doesn't pick up the regression bug. But it is still bound to be picked up by one of our (very demanding) customers.
I though of writing a unit test that would
Instantiate a ServiceCollection class (that implements IServiceCollection);
Call our own method that adds all services to that service collection (the same method used during normal startup);
Find all controllers through reflection, and try to construct them the same way MVC does - by getting dependent services from the DI container.
So my question is:
Does this approach make sense?
Is there an example somewhere that I could use?
Failing an example, how would I achieve 1) and 3) ?
I'm creating a new application in Zend Framework 3 and i have a question about a design pattern
Without entering in much details this application will have several Services, as in, will be connecting to external APIs and even in multiple databases, the workflow is also very complex, a single will action can have multiple flows depending on several external information (wich user logged in, configs, etc).
I know about dependency injections and Zend Framework 3 Service Manager, however i am worried about instanciating sereval services when the flow will actually use only a few of them in certain cases, also we will have services depending on other services aswell, for this, i was thinking about using singletons.
Is singleton really a solution here? I was looking a way to user singletons in Zend Framework 3 and haven't figured out a easy way since i can't find a way to user the Service Manager inside a service, as I can't retrive the instance of the Service Manager outside of the Factory system.
What is an easy way to implement singletons in Zend Framework 3?
Why use singletons?
You don't need to worry about too many services in your service manager since they are started only when you get them from the service manager.
Also don't use the service manager inside another class except a factory. In ZF3 it's removed from the controllers for a reason. One of them is testability. If all services are inject with a factory, you can easily write tests. Also if you read your code next year, you can easily see what dependencies are needed inside a class.
If you find there are too many services being injected inside a class which are not always needed you can:
Use the ProxyManager. This lazy loads a service but doesn't start it until a method is called.
Split the service: Move some parts from a service into a new service. e.g. You don't need to place everything in an UserService. You can also have an UserRegisterService, UserEmailService, UserAuthService and UserNotificationsService.
In stead of ZF3, you can also think about zend-expressive. Without getting into too much detail, it is a lightweight middleware framework. You can use middleware to detect what is needed for a request and route to the required action to process the request. Something like this can probably also done in ZF3 but maybe someone else can explain how to do it there.
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 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.