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.
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.
I am developing a website for a beauty salon. There is an admin part of the website, where the esthetician can add a new care. A care is linked to a care category (all cares related to hands, feets, massages, ...). To solve this I wrote this code into the CareRepository in the .NET API :
public async Task<Care?> AddAsync(Care care)
{
// var dbCareCategory = await this._careCategoryRepository.GetByNameAsync(care.CareCategoryName);
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(care.CareCategoryName) || string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(care.CareCategoryName))
return null;
var dbCareCategory = await this._instituteDbContext.CareCategories
.Where(careCategory => Equals(careCategory.Name, care.CareCategoryName))
.Include(careCategory => careCategory.Cares)
.FirstOrDefaultAsync();
if (dbCareCategory == null || dbCareCategory.Cares.Contains(care))
return null; // TODO : improve handling
dbCareCategory.Cares.Add(care);
await this._instituteDbContext.SaveChangesAsync();
return care;
}
My problem here is that I am a bit struggling with the best practice to have, because in order to add a care to a category, I have to get the category first. At the first place, I called the CareCategoryRepository to get the care (commented line). But then, EF was not tracking the change, so when I tried to add the care, it was not registered in the database. But once I call the category from the CareRepository, EF tracks the change and saves the Care in the database.
I assume this is because when calling from another repository, it is a different db context that tracks the changes of my entity. Please correct me if my assumption is wrong.
So, I am wondering, what is the best practice in this case ?
Keep doing what I am doing here, there is no issue to be calling the category entities from the care repository.
Change my solution and put the AddCare method into the CareCategoryRepository, because it makes more sense to call the categories entities from the CareCategoryRepository.
Something else ?
This solution works fine, however I feel like it may not be the best way to solve this.
The issue with passing entities around in web applications is that when your controller passes an entity to serve as a model for the view, this goes to the view engine on the server to consume and build the HTML for the view, but what comes back to the controller when a form is posted or an AJAX call is made is not an entity. It is a block of data cast to look like an entity.
A better way to think of it is that your Add method accepts a view model called AddCareViewModel which contains all of the fields and FKs needed to create a new Care entity. Think about the process you would use in that case. You would want to validate that the required fields are present, and that the FKs (CareCategory etc.) are valid, then construct a Care entity with that data. Accepting an "entity" from the client side of the request is trusting the client browser to construct a valid entity without any way to validate it. Never trust anything from the client.
Personally I use the repository pattern to serve as a factory for entities, though this could also be a separate class. I use the Repository since it already has access to everything needed. Factory methods offer a standard way of composing a new entity and ensuring that all required data is provided:
var care = _careRepository.Create(addCareViewModel.CareCategoryId,
/* all other required fields */);
care.OptionalField = addCareViewModel.OptionalField; // copy across optional data.
_context.SaveChanges(); // or ideally committed via a Unit of Work wrapper.
So for instance if a new Care requires a name, a category Id, and several other required fields, the Create method accepts those required fields and validates that they are provided. When it comes to FKs, the repository can load a reference to set the navigation property. (Also ensuring that a valid ID was given at the same time)
I don't recommend using a Generic Repository pattern with EF. (I.e. Repository()) Arguably the only reason to use a Repository pattern at all with EF would be to facilitate unit testing. Your code will be a lot simpler to understand/maintain, and almost certainly perform faster without a Repository. The DbContext already serves all of those needs and as a Unit of Work. When using a Repository to serve as a point of abstraction for enabling unit testing, instead of Generic, or per-entity repositories, I would suggest defining repositories like you would a Controller, with effectively a one-to-one responsibility.
If I have a CareController then I'd have a CareRepository that served all needs of the CareController. (Not just Care entities) The alternative is that the CareController would need several repository references, and each Repository would now potentially serve several controllers meaning it would have several reasons to change. Scoping a repository to serve the needs of a controller gives it only one reason to change. Sure, several repositories would potentially have methods to retrieve the same entity, but only one repository/controller should be typically responsible for creating/updating entities. (Plus repositories can always reference one another if you really want to see something as simple as Read methods implemented only once)
If using multiple repositories, the next thing to check is to ensure that the DbContext instance used is always scoped to the Web Request, and not something like Transient.
For instance if I have a CareRepository with a Create method that calls a CareCategoryRepository to get a CareCategory reference:
public Care Create(string name, int careCategoryId)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(name)) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameOf(name));
var care = new Care { Name = name };
var careCategory = _careCategoryRepository.GetById(careCategoryId);
care.CareCategory = careCategory;
_context.Cares.Add(care);
}
We would want to ensure that the DbContext reference (_context) in all of our repositories, and our controller/UnitOfWork if the controller is going to signal the commit with SaveChanges, are pointing at the exact same single reference. This applies whether repositories call each other or a controller fetches data from multiple repositories.
In OOP, should a Facade be an object or just a class? Which is better?
Most of the examples in Wikipedia creates Facade as an object which should be instantiated before use.
CarFacade cf = new CarFacade();
cf.start();
Can it be designed to be like this instead?
CarFacade.start();
UPDATE
Can a Facade facilitate a singleton?
A facade
represents a high level API for a complex subsystem (module).
reduces client code dependencies.
This means that your client code only uses the facade and does
not have a lot of dependencies to classes behind that facade.
It is better to use an instance of an interface, because
you can replace it for tests. E.g. mock the subsystem the facade represents.
you can replace it at runtime.
When you use a static methods, your client code is bound to that method implementations at compile-time. This is usually the opposite of the open/close principle.
I said "usually the opposite", because there are examples when static methods are used, but the system is still open for extension. E.g.
ServiceLoader
The static load methods only scan the classpath and lookup service implementations. Thus adding classes and META-INF/services descriptions to the classpath will add other available services without changing the ServiceLoader's code.
Spring's AuthenticationFacade for example uses a ThreadLocal internally. This makes it possible to replace the behavior of the AuthenticationFacade. Thus it is open for extension too.
Finally I think it is better to use an instance and interface like I would use for most of the other classes.
It's two fold. You can use it as a static method. Say for instance in spring security I use AuthenticationFacade to access currently logged in user Principal details like so. AuthenticationFacade.getName()
There are other instances, in which mostly people create an instance of Facade and use it. In my opinion neither approach is superior over the other. Rather it depends on your context.
Finally Facade can use Singleton pattern to make sure that it creates only one instance and provides a global point of access to it.
This question is highly subjective. The only reason I am responding is because I reviewed some of my own code and found where I had written a Façade in one application as a singleton and written almost the same Façade in a different application requiring an instance. I'm going to discuss why I chose each of those routes in their respective applications so that I can evaluate if I made the correct choice.
A façade vs the open/close principle is already explained by #Rene Link. In my personal experience, you have to think of it this way: Does the object hold the state of itself?
Let's say I have a façade that wraps the Azure Storage API for .NET (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/common/storage-samples-dotnet)
This facade holds information about how to authenticate against the storage API so that it the client can do something like this:
Azure.Authenticate(username, password);
Azure.CreateFile("My New Text File", "\\FILELOCATION");
As you can see in this example, I have not created an instance and i'm using static methods, therefore following the singleton pattern. While this makes for code that is more concise, I now have an issue if I need to authenticate to a given path with a different credential than the one already provided, I would have to do something like this:
Azure.Authenticate(username, password)
Azure.CreateFile("My New Text File", "\\FILELOCATION");
Azure.Authenticate(username2, password2);
Azure.CreateFile("My Restrictied Text File", "\\RESTRTICTEDFILELOCATION");
While this would work, it can be hard to determine why authentication failed when I call Azure.ReadFile, as I have no idea what username and password may have been passed into the singleton from thread4 on form2 (which is no where to found) This is a prime example of where you should be using an instance. It would make much more since to do something like this:
Using (AzureFacade myAzure = Azure.Authenticate(username, password))
{
Azure.CreateFile("My New Text File", "\\FILELOCATION"); // I will always know the username and password.
}
With that said, what happens if the developer needs to create a file in Azure in a method that has no idea what the username and password to Azure may be. A good example of this would be an application that periodically connects to Azure and performs some multi-threaded tasks. In said application, the user setups a connection string to azure and all mulit-threaded tasks are performed using that connection string. Therefore, there is no need to create an instance for each thread (as the state of the object will always be the same) However, in order to maintain thread safety, you don't want to share the same instance across all the threads. This is where a singleton, thread-safe pattern may come into play. (Spring's AuthenticationFacade according to #Rene Link) So that I could do something like this (psudocode)
Thread[] allTask = // Create 5 threads
Azure.Authenticate(username, password) // Authenticate for all 5 threads.
allTask.start(myfunction)
void myFunction()
{
Azure.CreateFile("x");
}
Therefore, the choice between an instance of a façade v. a singleton façade is completely dependent on the intended application of the facade, however both can definitely exist.
this is my first post, and I really have tried hard to find an answer, but am drawing a blank thus far.
My implementation of IDataContractSurrogate creates surrogates for certain 'cached' objects which I maintain (this works fine). What doesn't work is that in order for this system to operate effectively, it needs to access the service instance for some properties of the instance which it is maintaining from the interaction with its client. Also, when my implementation of IDataContractSurrogate works in its 'client mode' it needs access to the properties of the client instance in a similar way. Access to the information from the client and service instance affects how I create my surrogate types (or rather SHOULD do if I can answer this question!)
My service instancing is PerSession and concurrent.
On the server side, calls to GetDataContractType and GetDeserializedObject contain a valid OperationContext.Current from which I can of course retreive the service instance. However on the client side, none of the calls yield an OperationContext.Current. We are still in an operation as I am translating the surrogate types to the data contract types after they have been sent from the server as part of its response to the client request so I would have expected one? Maybe the entire idea of using OperationContext.Current from outside of an Operation invocation is wrong?
So, moving on, and trying to fix this problem I have examined the clientRuntime/dispatchRuntime object which is available when applying my customer behaviour, however that doesn't appear to give me any form of access to the client instance, unless I have a message reference perhaps... and then calling InstanceProvider. However I don't have the message.
Another idea I had was to use IInstanceProvider myself and then maybe build up a dictionary of all the ones which are dished out... but that's no good because I don't appear to have access to any session related piece of information from within my implementation of IDataContractSurrogate to use as a dictionary key.
I had originally implemented my own serializer but thats not what I want. I'm happy with the built in serializer, and changing the objects to special surrogates is exactly what I need to do, with the added bonus that every child property comes in for inspection.
I have also looked at applying a service behavior, but that also does not appear to yield a service instance, and also does not let me set a Surrogate implementation property.
I simply do not know how to gain access to the current session/instance from within my implementation IDataContractSurrogate. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Sean
I have solved my problem. The short answer is that I implemented IClientMessageFormatter and IDispatchMessageFormatter to accomplish what I needed. Inside SerializeReply I could always access the ServiceInstance as OperationContext.Current is valid. It was more work as I had to implement my own serialization and deserialization, but works flawlessly. The only issue remaining would be that there is no way to get the client proxy which is processing the response, but so far that is not a show stopper for me.
I am refactoring an old procedural PHP website into a tasty OOP application with a light sprinkling of Domain Driven Design for added flavour.
I keep stumbling upon cases where I have a need for classes that can have subclasses which are either entities or value objects.
An url object, for example. There are a zillion urls out there and so they all cannot really be entities. But some are very special urls, like my home page. That is an entity.
Another example is, say, a 'configuration object'. I'd like some configurations to have identities so i can create 'presets' and administer them via an online control panel. For those a finder/repository is needed to find them and ORM is needed to manage their lifetimes. But, for others 'not-presets' (of the same class hierarchy) I'd like to be able to load them up with data that has been customised on the fly and does not need to be persisted.
I am envisaging a lot of :
class factory {
reconstitute($rawdata) {
if (raw data has identity)
load up and return entity version of the class
else
load up and return anonymous/value object version of the class
It all seems a bit odd.
Is there any pattern out there that discusses the best way to handle this issue?
I'm not sure I totally understand your scenerio but... does that really matter?
In my experience with EFs/ORMs the best way (that I can think of) to do what you are wanting to do is to let your entity class decide whether or not to load/persist itself from/to a database based on business rules defined in the class.
$url = new URLClass('KEY_DATA') // returns loaded object url if key if found in database
$url = new URLClass() // returns new url object
$url = new URLClass('', '110011000110010001000011101010010100') // returns new url with data loaded from raw data
Not sure if that really helps you out or if it even applies.