We need to add a new profiling feature to our WCF application, for logging where time is spendt in the application. I'm looking at PostSharp for a convention driven approach of applying the logging and need some input on how to actually log it. I've already created a custom class for logging purposes, using StopWatch and can log the steps through the layers of my WCF application. However I'm wondering if there's a thread safe alternative library I could use in conjunction with PostSharp for this purpose. I've come across MiniProfiler, but it seems to be intended for ASP.NET MVC applications mainly. Any other frameworks I should consider or should I just use my custom class?
Thanks
I did something like that in the past using a IClientMessageInspector implemented on a custom IEndpointBehavior.
Depending on what kind of logging you want, this might just do the trick. There's an example in the following link
IClientMessageInspector Interface
PostSharp itself is thread-safe. The aspects that you write may be thread-unsafe if poorly written, but there's always a way to make them thread-safe.
If you're using OnMethodBoundaryAspect and need to pass something from OnEntry to OnSuccess, store the initial stopwatch value in OnMethodExecutionArgs.MethodExecutionTag.
Related
In building my current (first) Windows Phone app it requires me to create a Windows Runtime Component to achieve the functionality I require. In order for this setup to work and not duplicate a lot of code from my PCLs into the task class itself, I wanted to use the MMVMCross IOC that I am already using throughout the application.
Unfortunately, the Background Task (IBackgroundTask) is executed in an entirely different process. Trying to utilize the IOC via Mvx.Resolve throws a NullReferenceException. I cannot figure out how to initialize the IOC as the standard "setup.cs" method does not work in the Runtime Component.
I do not need the entire MVVMCross stack for this -- just the IOC.
Thank you.
I finally figured it out. I have to re-register on the background task, but to initialize you would call the basic initialize method on the simple IOC container:
Cirrious.CrossCore.IoC.MvxSimpleIoCContainer.Initialize();
Plugins were a problem, as the standard plugin mechanism is not available, but you can manually register the interfaces such as this:
Mvx.LazyConstructAndRegisterSingleton<IMvxFileStore>(() => new MvxWindowsCommonBlockingFileStore());
Of course, you can still register your other types and interfaces as you normally would.
I have been playing around the last couple of days with different solutions for mapping DTO's to entities for a VS2013, EF6, WCF Service App project.
It is a fairly large project that is currently undergoing a major refactoring to bring the legacy code under test (as well as port the ORM from OpenAccess to EF6).
To be honest I had never used AutoMapper before but what I saw I really liked so I set out to test it out in a demo app and to be honest I am a bit ashamed that I have been unable to achieve a working solution after hours of tinkering and Googling. Here is a breakdown of the project:
WCF Service Application template based project (.svc file w/code behind).
Using Unity 3.x for my IoC container and thus creating my own ServiceHostFactory inheriting from UnityServiceHostFactory.
Using current AutoMapper nuget package.
DTO's and DAL are in two separate libraries as expected, both of which are referenced by the service app project.
My goal is simple (I think): Wire up and create all of my maps in my composition root and inject the necessary objects (using my DI container) into the class that has domain knowledge of the DTO's and a reference to my DAL library. Anyone that needs a transformation would therefore only need to reference the transformation library.
The problem: Well, there are a couple of them...
1) I cannot find a working example of AutoMapper in Unity anywhere. The code snippet that is referenced many times across the web for registering AutoMapper in Unity (see below) references a Configuration class that doesn't seem to exist anymore and I cannot find any documentation on its deprecation:
container.RegisterType<AutoMapper.Configuration, AutoMapper.Configuration>(new PerThreadLifetimeManager(), new InjectionConstructor(typeof(ITypeMapFactory),
AutoMapper.Mappers.MapperRegistry.AllMappers())).RegisterType<ITypeMapFactory,
TypeMapFactoy>().RegisterType<IConfiguration, AutoMapper.Configuration>().RegisterType<IConfigurationProvider,
AutoMapper.Configuration>().RegisterType<IMappingEngine, MappingEngine>();
2) Where to create the maps themselves... I would assuming that I could perform this operation right in my ServiceHostFactory but is that the correct place? There is a Bootstrapper project out there but I have not gone down that road (yet) and would like to avoid it if possible.
3) Other than the obviously necessary reference to AutoMapper in the DTO lib, what would I be injecting into the instantition, the configuration object (assuming IConfiguration or IConfigurationProvider) and which class I am injecting into the constructor of the WCF service to gain access to the necessary object.
I know #3 is a little vague but since I cannot get AutoMapper bound in my Unity container, I cannot test/trial/error to figure out the other issues.
Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
UPDATE
So I now have a working solution that is testing correctly but would still like to get confirmation that I am following any established best practices.
First off, the Unity container registration for AutoMapper (as of 11/13/2013) v3.x looks like this:
container
.RegisterType<ConfigurationStore, ConfigurationStore>
(
new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager()
, new InjectionConstructor(typeof(ITypeMapFactory)
, MapperRegistry.AllMappers())
)
.RegisterType<IConfigurationProvider, ConfigurationStore>()
.RegisterType<IConfiguration, ConfigurationStore>()
.RegisterType<IMappingEngine, MappingEngine>()
.RegisterType<ITypeMapFactory, TypeMapFactory>();
Right after all of my container registrations, I created and am calling a RegisterMaps() method inside of ConfigureContainer(). I created a test mapping that does both an auto mapping for like named properties as well as a custom mapping. I did this in my demo app for two reasons primarily:
I don't yet know AutoMapper in a WCF app hosted in IIS and injected with Unity well enough to fully understand its behavior. I do not seem to have to inject any kind of configuration object into my library that does the transformations and I am still reading through the source to understand its implementation.
As I understand it, there is a caching mechanism at play here and that if a mapping is not found in cache that it will create it on the fly. While this is great in theory, the only way I could then test my mappings that were occurring in my composition root was to do some sort of custom mapping and then call Mapper.Map in the library that performs mapping and returns the DTO.
All of that blathering aside, here is what I was able to accomplish.
WCF Service App (composition root) injects all of the necessary objects including my DtoConversionMapper instance.
The project is made up of the WCF Service App (comp root), DtoLib, DalLib, ContractsLib (interfaces).
In my ServiceFactoryHost I am able to create mappings, including custom mappings (i.e. map unlike named properties between my DTO and EF 6 entity).
The DtoConversionMapper class lives in the DtoLib library and looks like this: IExampleDto GetExampleDto(ExampleEntity entity);
Any library with a reference to the DtoLib can convert back and forth, including the Service App where the vast majority of these calls will take place.
Any guiding advice would be greatly appreciated but I do have a working demo now that I can test things out with while I work through this large refactoring.
Final Update
I changed the demo project just a little by adding another library (MappingLib) and moved all of my DTO conversions and mappings to it in a static method. While I still call the static method in my composition root after the Unity container is initialized, this gives me the added flexibility of being able to call that same map creation method in my NUnit unit test libraries, effectively eliminating any duplication of code surrounding auto mapper and makes it very testable.
I have never made an API in objective-c, and need to do this now.
The "idea" is that I build an API which can be implemented into other applications. Much like Flurry, only for other purposes.
When starting the API, an username, password and mode should be entered. The mode should either be LIVE or BETA (I guess this should be an NSString(?)), then afterwards is should be fine with [MyAPI doSomething:withThisObject]; ect.
So to start it [MyAPI username:#"Username" password:#"Password" mode:#"BETA"];
Can anyone help me out with some tutorials and pointer on how to learn this best?
It sounds like what you want to do is build a static library. This is a compiled .a file containing object code that you'll distribute to a client along with a header file containing the interface. This post is a little outdated but has some good starting points. Or, if you don't mind giving away your source code, you could just deliver a collection of source files to your client.
In terms of developing the API itself, it should be very similar to the way you'd design interfaces and implementations of Objective-C objects in your own apps. You'll have a MyAPI class with functions for initialization, destruction, and all the functionality you want. You could also have multiple classes with different functionality if the interface is complex. Because you've capitalized MyAPI in your code snippet, it looks like you want to use it by calling the class rather than an instance of the class - which is a great strategy if you think you'll only ever need one instance. To accomplish this you can use the singleton pattern.
Because you've used a username and password, I imagine your API will interface with the web internally. I've found parsing JSON to be very straightforward in Objective-C - it's easy to send requests and get information from a server.
Personally I would use an enum of unsigned ints rather than a NSString just because it simplifies comparisons and such. So you could do something like:
enum {
MYAPI_MODE_BETA,
MYAPI_MODE_LIVE,
NUM_MYAPI_MODES
};
And then call:
[MyAPI username:#"Username" password:#"Password" mode:MYAPI_MODE_BETA];
Also makes it easy to check if they've supplied a valid mode. (Must be less than NUM_MYAPI_MODES.)
Good luck!
Is something like this possible? If so, could you point me in the right direction for learning how?
applicationx tries to run the method start() in dll_one.dll
dll_one.dll runs the command
applicationx tries to run the method run() in dll_one.dll
dll_one.dll doesn't have a method run() and hasn't prepared for such an occurance.
dll_one.dll asks dll_two.dll if it has a run()
dll_two runs run()
Basically, I want it so if dllA doesn't have a method that the application is looking for, it asks dllB. This is assuming, as well, that ApplicationX and dllB don't know anything about dllA and dllA kind of just appeared out of nowhere (I want dlls dynamically like a patch to my applications without having to rewrite ALL of the methods, properties, etc. in the dll and have everything else just routed to the old dll).
Any ideas? Keep in mind, I'm using vb.net so a .net reference is appreciated.
It seems like you're asking for a plug-in architecture for your app (except that "patch" part is bothering me). If so, you can try MEF, which solves this exact problem.
The specific thing you ask for isn't possible. You can't have a non-existent method call automatically re-routed to a different dll. You can't "run the method run() in dll_one.dll" unless you've compiled that code, and it won't compile if the method doesn't exist. You also can't compile code against dllB and then drop dllA in and have it intercept method calls. Reflection could conceivably solve part of your problem, but you'd not want to base your code around calling all methods by reflection - it'd be horrendously unperformant and not very maintainable.
As Anton suggests, a plugin approach might work. However, this would rely on you being able to specify up-front the interface for your plugin, which sounds like it would contradict your original requirement.
Another problem: if you'd not deployed dllA until later, how would your ApplicationX know to call method start() in dll_one.dll anyway? You'd surely need to re-deploy at least the base application for that part to work.
These kinds of problem are often best solved by having a more specific set of requirements to work to: what functionality are you likely to want to extend or change in the future? Could you support a common set of interfaces that allow extensibility via plugins, or can you need to redeploy encapsulated chunks of your application with new functionality? Is there UI involved or is this just to change back-end logic? Questions like this could help to suggest more viable solutions.
I have been a web developer for some time now using ASP.NET and C#, I want to try and increase my skills by using best practices.
I have a website. I want to load the settings once off, and just reference it where ever I need it. So I did some research and 50% of the developers seem to be using the singleton pattern to do this. And the other 50% of the developers are ant-singleton. They all hate singletons. They recommend dependency injection.
Why are singletons bad? What is best practice to load websites settings? Should they be loaded only once and referenced where needed? How would I go about doing this with dependency injection (I am new at this)? Are there any samples that someone could recommend for my scenario? And I also would like to see some unit test code for this (for my scenario).
Thanks
Brendan
Generally, I avoid singletons because they make it harder to unit test your application. Singletons are hard to mock up for unit tests precisely because of their nature -- you always get the same one, not one you can configure easily for a unit test. Configuration data -- strongly-typed configuration data, anyway -- is one exception I make, though. Typically configuration data is relatively static anyway and the alternative involves writing a fair amount of code to avoid the static classes the framework provides to access the web.config anyway.
There are a couple of different ways to use it that will still allow you to unit test you application. One way (maybe both ways, if your singleton doesn't lazily read the app.cofnig) is to have a default app.config file in your unit test project providing the defaults required for your tests. You can use reflection to replace any specific values as needed in your unit tests. Typically, I'd configure a private method that allows the private singleton instance to be deleted in test set up if I do make changes for particular tests.
Another way is to not actually use the singleton directly, but create an interface for it that the singleton class implements. You can use hand injection of the interface, defaulting to the singleton instance if the supplied value is null. This allows you to create a mock instance that you can pass to the class under test for your tests, but in your real code use the singleton instance. Essentially, every class that needs it maintains a private reference to the singleton instance and uses it. I like this way a little better, but since the singleton will be created you may still need the default app.config file, unless all of the values are lazily loaded.
public class Foo
{
private IAppConfiguration Configuration { get; set; }
public Foo() : this(null) { }
public Foo( IAppConfiguration config )
{
this.Configuration = config ?? AppConfiguration.Instance;
}
public void Bar()
{
var value = this.Config.SomeMaximum;
...
}
}
There's a good discussion of singleton patterns, and coding examples here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern See also here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection
For some reason, singletons seem to divide programmers into strong pro- and anti- camps. Whatever the merits of the approach, if your colleagues are against it, it's probably best not to use one. If you're on your own, try it and see.
Design Patterns can be amazing things. Unfortunately, the singleton seems to stick out like a sore thumb and in many cases can be considered an anti-pattern (it promotes bad practices). Bizarely, the majority of developers will only know one design pattern, and that is the singleton.
Ideally your settings should be a member variable in a high level location, for example the application object which owns the webpages you are spawning. The pages can then ask the app for the settings, or the application can pass the settings as pages are constructed.
One way to approach this problem, is to flog it off as a DAL problem.
Whatever class / web page, etc. needs to use config settings should declare a dependency on an IConfigSettingsService (factory/repository/whatever-you-like-to-call-them).
private IConfigSettingsService _configSettingsService;
public WebPage(IConfigSettingsService configSettingsService)
{
_configSettingsService = configSettingsService;
}
So your class would get settings like this:
ConfigSettings _configSettings = _configSettingsService.GetTheOnlySettings();
the ConfigSettingsService implementation would have a dependency which is Dal class. How would that Dal populate the ConfigSettings object? Who cares.
Maybe it would populate a ConfigSettings from a database or .config xml file, every time.
Maybe it do that the first time but then populate a static _configSettings for subsequent calls.
Maybe it would get the settings from Redis. If something indicates the settings have changed then the dal, or something external, can update Redis. (This approach will be useful if you have more than one app using the settings.
Whatever it does, your only dependency is a non-singleton service interface. That is very easy to mock. In your tests you can have it return a ConfigSettings with whatever you want in it).
In reality it would more likely be MyPageBase which has the IConfigSettingsService dependency, but it could just as easily be a web service, windows service, MVC somewhatsit, or all of the above.