MVC 4 Beta project fails to compile after upgrading to .Net 4.5.
This happens due to conflict between
System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.CompareAttribute and System.Web.Mvc.CompareAttribute
System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.CompareAttribute MSDN documentation says:
Provides an attribute that compares two properties.
While System.Web.Mvc.CompareAttribute MSDN documentation says:
Provides an attribute that compares two properties of a model.
What is the difference between the two and when it would be "smarter" to use each of them?
10x.
So, looking at the MSDN documentation and doing a literal comparison of the two classes, I noticed both classes are derived from System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.ValidationAttribute. In fact, the classes are almost exactly the same. The only notable difference is that the MVC version also implements IClientValidatable which adds the following properties:
FormatPropertyForClientValidation - (static member) Formats the property for client validation by prepending an asterisk and a dot.
GetClientValidationRules - Gets a list of compare-value client validation rules for the property using the specified model metadata and controller context.
As for which class you should use, if the model will be directly bound to a view, use the MVC version so that you can take advantage of the client-side validation. However, if you're using ViewModels, you can stick with the ComponentModel class and avoid the unnecessary overhead of the additional properties. Your call!
System.Web.Mvc.CompareAttribute
System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.CompareAttribute
Microsoft Connect work-around is:
Posted by GavK on 6/17/2012 at 5:13 AM
I added a full reference to [System.Web.Mvc.Compare(...)] rather than
just using [Compare(...)]
Works for me in VS 2012...
Vinney nailed most of it with the exception of which one you should use...
The reason you have a conflict after changing your target framework to 4.5 is because prior to .NET 4.5 there was no CompareAttribute class in the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace and the class defined under System.Web.Mvc filled the gap. Therefore, as an example if you were using [Compare] and [Required] attributes in your model class prior to updating your target framework you ended up with a conflict when you upgraded.
Assuming you are not using anything else in the System.Web.Mvc namespace in your model class, you should remove that using statement and let it rely on the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace. Unobtrusive client-side validation will continue to work exactly as it did before, just as it does for other attributes that you decorate your model's properties with from the same namespace (eg Required).
If you wish to be explicit about the reference, you can simply add this line:
using CompareAttribute = System.Web.Mvc.CompareAttribute;
Using Visual Studio 2013 (MVC 5 project, .NET 4.5) the IntelliSense suggests that System.Web.Mvc.CompareAttribute is deprecated.
I used System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.CompareAttribute and it works fine.
It also does the client-side validation!
On this post, they also suggest another solution, which is to move the reference of the preferred namespace for Compare() inside the model's namespace. Eg. if you prefer to use Compare from System.Web.Mvc, use:
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
namespace MyProject.MyViewModel
{
using System.Web.Mvc;
The compiler will search inside the model's namespace first.
We are implementing IoC/DI in our application using NInject framework. We are having internal classes having internal methods. To implement IoC/DI, we have to extract interfaces. But if we are having only internal methods in an internal class, we can't extract interface for that class.
So is there a way to implement IoC/DI in such cases (internal class having only internal methods) or should we change our internal methods to public methods. Kindly suggest. Thanks
If your class is already internal then there is absolutely not difference between internal and public methods. public methods of internal classes are only internally visible.
If you stay with injecting concrete classes though you loose all the advantages of DI. So yes you should extract (internal) interfaces and inject the interfaces. This requires that the configuration code has access to the classes by either beeing in the same assembly of the assembly must be declased as friend assembly. Futhermore, you have to configure Ninject to allow none public classes. See NinjectSettings.
The only thing that you really need to make public is the interface (not the concrete implementation).
You can use an abstract factory or (easier) Ninject to map the public interface to the internal concrete; thus your client code just has to request an instance of "a thing" that implements the interface and your factory / container will return the implementation.
You should read up on Dependency Inversion Principle as well as it goes hand-in-hand with this.
You could use InternalsVisibleTo attribute in AssemblyInfo.cs file like this
[assembly: InternalsVisibleTo("Assembly_That_Should_Access_The_Internal_Class")]
Simple question... I want to use Ninject Interceptors to take care of my NFRs, however alot of my classes require arguments in the constructors. I read that they are looking at allowing constructors with arguments but currently I get an error:
Can not instantiate proxy of class: myClass
Could not find a parameterless constructor.
Parameter name: constructorArguments
I am using version 2.2.1 I think, noticed there is a tagged 2.3 version on the extensions site, but will any of this solve my problems? if not is there any way around this?
2.3 adds support for Interface proxies. This means it will solve the problem for all types that are resolved by interface. It's also planned to add support for classes without default constructor.
But be aware that 2.3 is work in progress. While there aren't any known new problems it is not tested yet against real applications as 2.2 is and interface changes of new stuff can still change. Also InRequestScope support for XML and Conventions has temporarily been disabled.
.NET 4.0 has that new Code Contracts feature. It works with interfaces too, as described here (scroll down to somewhere in the comments):
http://weblogs.asp.net/podwysocki/archive/2008/11/08/code-contracts-for-net-4-0-spec-comes-alive.aspx
Now my question is, can we use and abuse this "Default Interface Implementation Feature" by putting more custom code into those contract classes to achieve some MixIns functionality?
I don't think so. When defining code contracts for an interface, you can add a rela class that contains "requires" and "ensures" method calls that will be added to implementation methods, but the code rewriter will only run after the compiler has done its job (ie complaining that the interface method is not implemented by the class...)
Might be abused to implement aspects, though :-)
Anyway, I don't think the code rewriter would add anything else than requires and ensures method. And the code would not be added to the release assembly, only on the debug assembly.
Specifically, when you create an interface/implementor pair, and there is no overriding organizational concern (such as the interface should go in a different assembly ie, as recommended by the s# architecture) do you have a default way of organizing them in your namespace/naming scheme?
This is obviously a more opinion based question but I think some people have thought about this more and we can all benefit from their conclusions.
The answer depends on your intentions.
If you intend the consumer of your namespaces to use the interfaces over the concrete implementations, I would recommend having your interfaces in the top-level namespace with the implementations in a child namespace
If the consumer is to use both, have them in the same namespace.
If the interface is for predominantly specialized use, like creating new implementations, consider having them in a child namespace such as Design or ComponentModel.
I'm sure there are other options as well, but as with most namespace issues, it comes down to the use-cases of the project, and the classes and interfaces it contains.
I usually keep the interface in the same namespace of as the concrete types.
But, that's just my opinion, and namespace layout is highly subjective.
Animals
|
| - IAnimal
| - Dog
| - Cat
Plants
|
| - IPlant
| - Cactus
You don't really gain anything by moving one or two types out of the main namespace, but you do add the requirement for one extra using statement.
What I generally do is to create an Interfaces namespace at a high level in my hierarchy and put all interfaces in there (I do not bother to nest other namespaces in there as I would then end up with many namespaces containing only one interface).
Interfaces
|--IAnimal
|--IVegetable
|--IMineral
MineralImplementor
Organisms
|--AnimalImplementor
|--VegetableImplementor
This is just the way that I have done it in the past and I have not had many problems with it, though admittedly it might be confusing to others sitting down with my projects. I am very curious to see what other people do.
I prefer to keep my interfaces and implementation classes in the same namespace. When possible, I give the implementation classes internal visibility and provide a factory (usually in the form of a static factory method that delegates to a worker class, with an internal method that allows a unit tests in a friend assembly to substitute a different worker that produces stubs). Of course, if the concrete class needs to be public--for instance, if it's an abstract base class, then that's fine; I don't see any reason to put an ABC in its own namespace.
On a side note, I strongly dislike the .NET convention of prefacing interface names with the letter 'I.' The thing the (I)Foo interface models is not an ifoo, it's simply a foo. So why can't I just call it Foo? I then name the implementation classes specifically, for example, AbstractFoo, MemoryOptimizedFoo, SimpleFoo, StubFoo etc.
(.Net) I tend to keep interfaces in a separate "common" assembly so I can use that interface in several applications and, more often, in the server components of my apps.
Regarding namespaces, I keep them in BusinessCommon.Interfaces.
I do this to ensure that neither I nor my developers are tempted to reference the implementations directly.
Separate the interfaces in some way (projects in Eclipse, etc) so that it's easy to deploy only the interfaces. This allows you to provide your external API without providing implementations. This allows dependent projects to build with a bare minimum of externals. Obviously this applies more to larger projects, but the concept is good in all cases.
I usually separate them into two separate assemblies. One of the usual reasons for a interface is to have a series of objects look the same to some subsystem of your software. For example I have all my Reports implementing the IReport Interfaces. IReport is used is not only used in printing but for previewing and selecting individual options for each report. Finally I have a collection of IReport to use in dialog where the user selects which reports (and configuring options) they want to print.
The Reports reside in a separate assembly and the IReport, the Preview engine, print engine, report selections reside in their respective core assembly and/or UI assembly.
If you use the Factory Class to return a list of available reports in the report assembly then updating the software with new report becomes merely a matter of copying the new report assembly over the original. You can even use the Reflection API to just scan the list of assemblies for any Report Factories and build your list of Reports that way.
You can apply this techniques to Files as well. My own software runs a metal cutting machine so we use this idea for the shape and fitting libraries we sell alongside our software.
Again the classes implementing a core interface should reside in a separate assembly so you can update that separately from the rest of the software.
I give my own experience that is against other answers.
I tend to put all my interfaces in the package they belongs to. This grants that, if I move a package in another project I have all the thing there must be to run the package without any changes.
For me, any helper functions and operator functions that are part of the functionality of a class should go into the same namespace as that of the class, because they form part of the public API of that namespace.
If you have common implementations that share the same interface in different packages you probably need to refactor your project.
Sometimes I see that there are plenty of interfaces in a project that could be converted in an abstract implementation rather that an interface.
So, ask yourself if you are really modeling a type or a structure.
A good example might be looking at what Microsoft does.
Assembly: System.Runtime.dll
System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<T>
Where are the concrete types?
Assembly: System.Colleections.dll
System.Collections.Generic.List<T>
System.Collections.Generic.Queue<T>
System.Collections.Generic.Stack<T>
// etc
Assembly: EntityFramework.dll
System.Data.Entity.IDbSet<T>
Concrete Type?
Assembly: EntityFramework.dll
System.Data.Entity.DbSet<T>
Further examples
Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.ILogger<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Logger<T>
Microsoft.Extensions.Options.IOptions<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Options.OptionsManager<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Options.OptionsWrapper<T>
- Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory.MemoryCacheOptions
- Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.SqlServer.SqlServerCacheOptions
- Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Redis.RedisCacheOptions
Some very interesting tells here. When the namespace changes to support the interface, the namespace change Caching is also prefixed to the derived type RedisCacheOptions. Additionally, the derived types are in an additional namespace of the implementation.
Memory -> MemoryCacheOptions
SqlServer -> SqlServerCatchOptions
Redis -> RedisCacheOptions
This seems like a fairly easy pattern to follow most of the time. As an example I (since no example was given) the following pattern might emerge:
CarDealership.Entities.Dll
CarDealership.Entities.IPerson
CarDealership.Entities.IVehicle
CarDealership.Entities.Person
CarDealership.Entities.Vehicle
Maybe a technology like Entity Framework prevents you from using the predefined classes. Thus we make our own.
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.Dll
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.Person
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.Vehicle
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.SalesPerson
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.FinancePerson
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.LotVehicle
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.ShuttleVehicle
CarDealership.Entities.EntityFramework.BorrowVehicle
Not that it happens often but may there's a decision to switch technologies for whatever reason and now we have...
CarDealership.Entities.Dapper.Dll
CarDealership.Entities.Dapper.Person
CarDealership.Entities.Dapper.Vehicle
//etc
As long as we're programming to the interfaces we've defined in root Entities (following the Liskov Substitution Principle) down stream code doesn't care where how the Interface was implemented.
More importantly, In My Opinion, creating derived types also means you don't have to consistently include a different namespace because the parent namespace contains the interfaces. I'm not sure I've ever seen a Microsoft example of interfaces stored in child namespaces that are then implement in the parent namespace (almost an Anti-Pattern if you ask me).
I definitely don't recommend segregating your code by type, eg:
MyNamespace.Interfaces
MyNamespace.Enums
MyNameSpace.Classes
MyNamespace.Structs
This doesn't add value to being descriptive. And it's akin to using System Hungarian notation, which is mostly if not now exclusively, frowned upon.
I HATE when I find interfaces and implementations in the same namespace/assembly. Please don't do that, if the project evolves, it's a pain in the ass to refactor.
When I reference an interface, I want to implement it, not to get all its implementations.
What might me be admissible is to put the interface with its dependency class(class that references the interface).
EDIT: #Josh, I juste read the last sentence of mine, it's confusing! of course, both the dependency class and the one that implements it reference the interface. In order to make myself clear I'll give examples :
Acceptable :
Interface + implementation :
namespace A;
Interface IMyInterface
{
void MyMethod();
}
namespace A;
Interface MyDependentClass
{
private IMyInterface inject;
public MyDependentClass(IMyInterface inject)
{
this.inject = inject;
}
public void DoJob()
{
//Bla bla
inject.MyMethod();
}
}
Implementing class:
namespace B;
Interface MyImplementing : IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("hello world");
}
}
NOT ACCEPTABLE:
namespace A;
Interface IMyInterface
{
void MyMethod();
}
namespace A;
Interface MyImplementing : IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("hello world");
}
}
And please DON'T CREATE a project/garbage for your interfaces ! example : ShittyProject.Interfaces. You've missed the point!
Imagine you created a DLL reserved for your interfaces (200 MB). If you had to add a single interface with two line of codes, your users will have to update 200 MB just for two dumb signaturs!