What would you call a stateful function/object x() -> bool with the following behavior: on the first call it returns TRUE, on all consecutive calls it returns FALSE. Maybe there is a pattern name already for such functionality?
The closest concept is the read-once object pattern from the Secure by Design book. Look at the paragraph below describing the object that allows to request the password only once.
A read-once object is, as the name implies, an object designed to be read once. This object
usually represents a value or concept in your domain that’s considered to be sensitive
(for example, passport numbers, credit card numbers, or passwords). The main purpose
of the read-once object is to facilitate detection of unintentional use of the data
it encapsulates.
public final class SensitiveValue {
private transient final AtomicReference<String> value;
public SensitiveValue(final String value) {
validate(value);
this.value = new AtomicReference<>(value);
}
public String value() {
return notNull(value.getAndSet(null),
"Sensitive value has already been consumed");
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return "SensitiveValue{value=*****}";
}
}
I don't know the full context of your problem but the book suggests to use the read-once object pattern in favor of security perspective. #jaco0646 also pointed out in the comments that the concept is similar to the circuit breaker pattern. Though it doesn't force for the object to always return the same value on consecutive calls. Instead, it temporary makes to obtain the stub value to give the external service some time to recover.
I don't quite fully understand this situation, where AsyncLocal instance is set at a certain point in the AuthenticationHandler, but does not reach the controller, when it is injected into the constructor.
I've made it similar to how IHttpContextAccessor works, but still nowhere near. However, if I set the AsyncLocal from a Middleware, it reaches the controller. Also, setting the HttpContext.Items property from AuthenticationHandler works just fine.
Question: How is HttpContext able to retain Items property contents all the way, and is ASP.NET runtime disposing the captured ExecutionContext of my DomainContextAccessor for some security reason because of where it is being set at?
I've made a sample app to demo this use case. I'd really appreciate someone shedding the light on this problem.
You already have a good answer on "how should I fix this?" Here's more of a description of why it's behaving this way.
AsyncLocal<T> has the same semantics as logging scopes. Because it has those same semantics, I always prefer to use it with an IDisposable, so that the scope is clear and explicit, and there's no weird rules around whether a method is marked async or not.
For specifics on the weird rules, see this. In summary:
Writing a new value to an AsyncLocal<T> sets that value in the current scope.
Methods marked async will copy their scope to a new scope the first time it's written to (and it's the new scope that is modified).
I've made it similar to how IHttpContextAccessor works, but still nowhere near.
I don't recommend copying the design of IHttpContextAccessor. It works... for that very specific use case. If you want to use AsyncLocal<T>, then use a design like this:
static class MyImplicitValue
{
private static readonly AsyncLocal<T> Value = new();
public static T Get() => Value.Value;
public static IDisposable Set(T newValue)
{
var oldValue = Value.Value;
Value.Value = newValue;
return new Disposable(() => Value.Value = oldValue);
}
}
usage:
using (MyImplicitValue.Set(myValue))
{
// Code in here can get myValue from MyImplicitValue.Get().
}
You can wrap that into an IMyImplicitValueAccessor if desired, but note that any "setter" logic should be using the IDisposable pattern as shown.
AsyncLocal instance is set at a certain point in the AuthenticationHandler, but does not reach the controller
That's because your AuthenticationHandler sets the value but doesn't call the controller after setting that value (and it shouldn't).
However, if I set the AsyncLocal from a Middleware, it reaches the controller.
That's because middleware is calls the next middleware (eventually getting to the controller). I.e., middleware is structured like this:
public async Task InvokeAsync(HttpContext context)
{
using (implicitValue.Set(myValue))
{
await _next(context);
}
}
So the controllers are in the scope of when that AsyncLocal<T> value was set.
How is HttpContext able to retain Items property contents all the way
Items is just a property bag. It doesn't have anything to do with AsyncLocal<T>. It exists because it's a property on HttpContext, and it persists because the same HttpContext instance is used throughout the request.
is ASP.NET runtime disposing the captured ExecutionContext of my DomainContextAccessor for some security reason because of where it is being set at?
Not exactly. The AsyncLocal<T> is being set just fine; it's just that the controllers are not called within the scope of that AsyncLocal<T> being set.
So what must be happening is there is a execution context change which wipes that value out. It works with in the middleware because your controller is in the same execution context as your middleware.
Change your code to this:
private static void DomainContextChangeHandler(AsyncLocalValueChangedArgs<DomainContextHolder> args)
{
Trace.WriteLine($"ThreadContextChanged: {args.ThreadContextChanged}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Current: {args.CurrentValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Previous: {args.PreviousValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Thread Id: {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
}
Now you can see when the context changes.
Here is something you could do:
private static void DomainContextChangeHandler(AsyncLocalValueChangedArgs<DomainContextHolder> args)
{
if (args.ThreadContextChanged && (args.PreviousValue != null) && (args.CurrentValue == null))
{
Trace.WriteLine(
"***** Detected context change with a previous value but setting current " +
"value to null. Resetting value to previous.");
_domainContextCurrent.Value = args.PreviousValue;
return;
}
Trace.WriteLine($"ThreadContextChanged: {args.ThreadContextChanged}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Current: {args.CurrentValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Previous: {args.PreviousValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Thread Id: {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
}
But, that kinda defeats the purpose of using AsyncLocal as your backing store.
My suggestion is you drop the AsyncLocal and use normal class-scoped storage:
namespace WebApp.Models
{
public interface IDomainContextAccessor
{
DomainContext DomainContext { get; set; }
}
public sealed class DomainContextAccessor : IDomainContextAccessor
{
public DomainContext DomainContext { get; set; }
}
}
And inject it as scoped instead of singleton:
services.AddScoped<IDomainContextAccessor, DomainContextAccessor>();
It will do exactly what you want without any kludges -- AND, the future you (or devs) will absolutely understand what's going on and why it is the way it is.
No middleware, no AsyncLocal funny-business. It just works.
Your answer is here:
.net core AsyncLocal loses its value
In your DomainContextAccessor class when you set new value in this line: _domainContextCurrent.Value = new DomainContextHolder { Context = value };
you create NEW ExecutionContext in current thread and child threads.
So I suppose that mvc runs like this:
Middleware thread => you set value => some child thread with Controller execution which sees parent changes
But for UserAuthenticationHandler it feels it works like this:
Some controller factory creates controller with injected IDomainContextAccessor (1 context) => mvc executes auth handler in child task where you set value and create 2 context. But it's value does not go UP to parent (where controller 1 context exists) because you create new context when you set value. Even more your code gets parents context, gets reference to its value and makes property Context = null, so you will get null in Controller.
So to fix this you need to change your code:
public class DomainContext
{
private static AsyncLocal<DomainContext> _contextHolder = new AsyncLocal<DomainContext>();
public static DomainContext Current
{
get
{
return _contextHolder.Value;
}
}
public Job JobInfo { get; set; }
public static void InitContext()
{
_contextHolder.Value = new DomainContext();
}
}
//using in middleware:
DomainContext.InitContext();
//using in auth handler:
DomainContext.Current.JobInfo = ...
In example above you don't change DomainContext reference in _contextHolder.Value;
It remains the same but you only change value of JobInfo in it later in auth handler
I'm trying to recreate Hearthstone cards as objects in Java, but I'm having trouble doing this in a good and efficient way.
All cards have some common properties like a 'name'. But the problem is that there is about 300 cards to generate, and there is about 30 different abilities that each card may or may not have. Now, do I have to create a basic card class with all the possible abilities set to false and then set all its specific ability parameters to true? This approach seems to get very messy with all the getters and all the extra information that some abilities needs to specify... So my question is if there's there a better way to solve this kind of problem?
I would like to create these card objects so that I'm only 'adding' the specific abilities as fields, but I can't figure out how to do this in a good way.
Thankful for help!
Like Dave said, it's a little difficult to be sure what the best solution to your problem is without more context. However, from what I can gather, your problem is a pretty common one. For common problems, programmers often create efficient solutions that can be used over and over again called design patterns.
Design patterns aren't needed in every case, so be careful not to overuse them, but it seems like they could help you here. Both solutions mentioned by Dave may work, but the problem with making each ability an object is that it requires you to make as many classes as you have abilities. Furthermore, if each ability is a simple variable, it may be overkill to create classes for all of them, particularly since so many classes can become difficult to maintain. Although having these abilities inherit from an interface somewhat helps with maintainability, I think an easier solution can probably be found in the builder pattern.
I won't explain it in detail here, but here's a tutorial that seems reasonably simple. It's basic purpose is to
For your particular example it would look something like this:
public class Card
{
private final String name;
private final Ability soundAbility;
private final Ability animationAbility;
private final Ability customMessageAbility;
private final String technology;
// The constructor is private in this case to restrict instantiation to the builder.
private Card(CardBuilder builder)
{
this.name = builder.name;
this.soundAbility = builder.soundAbility;
this.animationAbility = builder.animationAbility;
this.customMessageAbility = builder.customMessageAbility;
this.technology = builder.technology;
}
// Getters
public String getName()
{
return this.name;
}
public Ability getSoundAbility()
{
return this.soundAbility;
}
// ... More getters and stuff ...
#Override
public String toString()
{
String text = "";
text += this.name + ":";
text += "\n\t" + this.soundAbility;
text += "\n\t" + this.animationAbility;
text += "\n\t" + this.customMessageAbility;
text += "\n\tI have the ability of " + this.technology + "!";
return text;
}
// Nested builder class
public static class CardBuilder
{
private final String name;
private Ability soundAbility;
private Ability animationAbility;
private Ability customMessageAbility;
private String technology;
public CardBuilder(String name)
{
this.name = name;
}
public CardBuilder soundAbility(Ability soundAbility)
{
this.soundAbility = soundAbility;
return this;
}
public CardBuilder animationAbility(Ability animationAbility)
{
this.animationAbility = animationAbility;
return this;
}
public CardBuilder customMessageAbility(Ability customMessageAbility)
{
this.customMessageAbility = customMessageAbility;
return this;
}
public CardBuilder technology(String technology)
{
this.technology = technology;
return this;
}
public Card build()
{
return new Card(this);
}
}
}
Then to run the program:
package builderTest;
class BuilderMain
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// Initialize ability objects.
Ability a1 = new SoundAbility();
Ability a2 = new AnimationAbility();
Ability a3 = new CustomMessageAbility();
// Build card
Card card = new Card.CardBuilder("Birthday Card")
.soundAbility(a1)
.animationAbility(a2)
.customMessageAbility(a3)
.technology("Flash")
.build();
System.out.println(card);
}
}
The output would be something along the lines of:
Birthday Card:
I have the ability of sound!
I have the ability of animation!
I have the ability of customizing messages!
I have the ability of Flash!
Keep in mind that I'm working without much context, so what you need might be significantly different.
Although previous answers are very good, there is still another way of achieve this Object creation
with very many optional fields
I found myself in similar situation when dealing with DB complexity and Command design pattern. As you know some table columns values are mandatory - some are not. I'm using this Effective Java book
for such cases.
So, useful here is the Consider a builder when faced with many constructor parameters. By doing so, you avoid
first, the Telescoping constructor pattern (does not scale well) - it works, but it is hard to write client code when there are many parameters, and harder still to read it.
second, the JavaBeans Pattern, which is good, but allows inconsistency and mandates mutability. It may be in an inconsistent state partway through its construction and precludes the possibility of making a class immutable too.
The Builder pattern as used simulates named optional parameters as found in Ada and Python.Like a constructor, a builder can impose invariants on its parameters. But it is critical that they be checked after copying the parameters from the builder to the object, and that they be checked on
the object fields rather than the builder fields.
Cheers.
I don't know why I started thinking about this, but now I can't seem to stop.
In C# - and probably a lot of other languages, I remember that Delphi used to let you do this too - it's legal to write this syntax:
class WeirdClass
{
private void Hello(string name)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello, {0}!", name);
}
public string Name
{
set { Hello(name); }
}
}
In other words, the property has a setter but no getter, it's write-only.
I guess I can't think of any reason why this should be illegal, but I've never actually seen it in the wild, and I've seen some pretty brilliant/horrifying code in the wild. It seems like a code smell; it seems like the compiler should be giving me a warning:
CS83417: Property 'Name' appears to be completely useless and stupid. Bad programmer! Consider replacing with a method.
But maybe I just haven't been doing this long enough, or have been working in too narrow a field to see any examples of the effective use of such a construct.
Are there real-life examples of write-only properties that either cannot be replaced by straight method calls or would become less intuitive?
My first reaction to this question was: "What about the java.util.Random#setSeed method?"
I think that write-only properties are useful in several scenarios. For example, when you don't want to expose the internal representation (encapsulation), while allowing to change the state of the object. java.util.Random is a very good example of such design.
Code Analysis (aka FxCop) does give you a diagnostic:
CA1044 : Microsoft.Design : Because
property 'WeirdClass.Name' is write-only,
either add a property getter with an
accessibility that is greater than or
equal to its setter or convert this
property into a method.
Write-only properties are actually quite useful, and I use them frequently. It's all about encapsulation -- restricting access to an object's components. You often need to provide one or more components to a class that it needs to use internally, but there's no reason to make them accessible to other classes. Doing so just makes your class more confusing ("do I use this getter or this method?"), and more likely that your class can be tampered with or have its real purpose bypassed.
See "Why getter and setter methods are evil" for an interesting discussion of this. I'm not quite as hardcore about it as the writer of the article, but I think it's a good thing to think about. I typically do use setters but rarely use getters.
I have code similar to the following in an XNA project. As you can see, Scale is write-only, it is useful and (reasonably) intuitive and a read property (get) would not make sense for it. Sure it could be replaced with a method, but I like the syntax.
public class MyGraphicalObject
{
public double ScaleX { get; set; }
public double ScaleY { get; set; }
public double ScaleZ { get; set; }
public double Scale { set { ScaleX = ScaleY = ScaleZ = value; } }
// more...
}
One use for a write-only property is to support setter dependency injection, which is typically used for optional parameters.
Let's say I had a class:
public class WhizbangService {
public WhizbangProvider Provider { set; private get; }
}
The WhizbangProvider is not intended to be accessed by the outside world. I'd never want to interact with service.Provider, it's too complex. I need a class like WhizbangService to act as a facade. Yet with the setter, I can do something like this:
service.Provider = new FireworksShow();
service.Start();
And the service starts a fireworks display. Or maybe you'd rather see a water and light show:
service.Stop();
service.Provider = new FountainDisplay(new StringOfLights(), 20, UnitOfTime.Seconds);
service.Start();
And so on....
This becomes especially useful if the property is defined in a base class. If you chose construction injection for this property, you'd need to write a constructor overload in any derived class.
public abstract class DisplayService {
public WhizbangProvider Provider { set; private get; }
}
public class WhizbangService : DisplayService { }
Here, the alternative with constructor injection is:
public abstract class DisplayService {
public WhizbangProvider Provider;
protected DisplayService(WhizbangProvider provider) {
Provider = provider ?? new DefaultProvider();
}
}
public class WhizbangService : DisplayService {
public WhizbangService(WhizbangProvider provider)
: base(provider)
{ }
}
This approach is messier in my opinion, because you need to some of the internal workings of the class, specifically, that if you pass null to the constructor, you'll get a reasonable default.
In MVP pattern it is common to write a property with a setter on the view (no need for a getter) - whenever the presenter sets it content the property will use that value to update some UI element.
See here for a small demonstration:
public partial class ShowMeTheTime : Page, ICurrentTimeView
{
protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
CurrentTimePresenter presenter = new CurrentTimePresenter(this);
presenter.InitView();
}
public DateTime CurrentTime
{
set { lblCurrentTime.Text = value.ToString(); }
}
}
The presenter InitView method simply sets the property's value:
public void InitView()
{
view.CurrentTime = DateTime.Now;
}
Making something write-only is usefulwhenever you're not supposed to read what you write.
For example, when drawing things onto the screen (this is precisely what the Desktop Window Manager does in Windows):
You can certainly draw to a screen, but you should never need to read back the data (let alone expect to get the same design as before).
Now, whether write-only properties are useful (as opposed to methods), I'm not sure how often they're used. I suppose you could imagine a situation with a "BackgroundColor" property, where writing to it sets the background color of the screen, but reading makes no sense (necessarily).
So I'm not sure about that part, but in general I just wanted to point out that there are use cases for situations in which you only write data, and never read it.
Although the .NET design guidelines recommend using a method ("SetMyWriteOnlyParameter") instead of a write-only property, I find write-only properties useful when creating linked objects from a serialised representation (from a database).
Our application represents oil-field production systems. We have the system as a whole (the "Model" object) and various Reservoir, Well, Node, Group etc objects.
The Model is created and read from database first - the other objects need to know which Model they belong to. However, the Model needs to know which lower object represents the Sales total. It makes sense for this information to be stored a Model property. If we do not want to have to do two reads of Model information, we need to be able to read the name of Sales object before its creation. Then, subsequently, we set the "SalesObject" variable to point to the actual object (so that, e.g., any change by the user of the name of this object does not cause problems)
We prefer to use a write-only property - 'SalesObjectName = "TopNode"' - rather than a method - 'SetSalesObjectName("TopNode") - because it seems to us that the latter suggests that the SalesObject exists.
This is a minor point, but enough to make us want to use a Write-Only property.
As far as I'm concerned, they don't. Every time I've used a write-only property as a quick hack I have later come to regret it. Usually I end up with a constructor or a full property.
Of course I'm trying to prove a negative, so maybe there is something I'm missing.
I can't stop thinking about this, either. I have a use case for a "write-only" property. I can't see good way out of it.
I want to construct a C# attribute that derives from AuthorizeAttribute for an ASP.NET MVC app. I have a service (say, IStore) that returns information that helps decide if the current user should be authorized. Constructor Injection won't work, becuase
public AllowedAttribute: AuthorizeAttribute
{
public AllowedAttribute(IStore store) {...}
private IStore Store { get; set; }
...
}
makes store a positional attribute parameter, but IStore is not a valid attribute parameter type, and the compiler won't build code that is annotated with it. I am forced to fall back on Property Setter Injection.
public AllowedAttribute: AuthorizeAttribute
{
[Inject] public IStore Store { private get; set; }
...
}
Along with all the other bad things about Property Setter instead of Constructor Injection, the service is a write-only property. Bad enough that I have to expose the setter to clients that shouldn't need to know about the implementation detail. It wouldn't do anybody any favors to let clients see the getter, too.
I think that the benefit of Dependency Injection trumps the guidelines against write-only properties for this scenario, unless I am missing something.
I just came across that situation when writing a program that reads data from a JSON database (Firebase). It uses Newtonsoft's Json.NET to populate the objects. The data are read-only, i.e., once loaded they won't change. Also, the objects are only deserialized and won't be serialized again. There may be better ways, but this solution just looks reasonable for me.
using Newtonsoft.Json;
// ...
public class SomeDatabaseClass
{
// JSON object contains a date-time field as string
[JsonProperty("expiration")]
public string ExpirationString
{
set
{
// Needs a custom parser to handle special date-time formats
Expiration = Resources.CustomParseDateTime(value);
}
}
// But this is what the program will effectively use.
// DateTime.MaxValue is just a default value
[JsonIgnore]
public DateTime Expiration { get; private set; } = DateTime.MaxValue;
// ...
}
No, I can' imagine any case where they can't be replaced, though there might people who consider them to be more readable.
Hypothetical case:
CommunicationDevice.Response = "Hello, World"
instead of
CommunicationDevice.SendResponse("Hello, World")
The major job would be to perform IO side-effects or validation.
Interestingly, VB .NET even got it's own keyword for this weird kind of property ;)
Public WriteOnly Property Foo() As Integer
Set(value As Integer)
' ... '
End Set
End Property
even though many "write-only" properties from outside actually have a private getter.
I recently worked on an application that handled passwords. (Note that I'm not claiming that the following is a good idea; I'm just describing what I did.)
I had a class, HashingPassword, which contained a password. The constructor took a password as an argument and stored it in a private attribute. Given one of these objects, you could either acquire a salted hash for the password, or check the password against a given salted hash. There was, of course, no way to retrieve the password from a HashingPassword object.
So then I had some other object, I don't remember what it was; let's pretend it was a password-protected banana. The Banana class had a set-only property called Password, which created a HashingPassword from the given value and stored it in a private attribute of Banana. Since the password attribute of HashingPassword was private, there was no way to write a getter for this property.
So why did I have a set-only property called Password instead of a method called SetPassword? Because it made sense. The effect was, in fact, to set the password of the Banana, and if I wanted to set the password of a Banana object, I would expect to do that by setting a property, not by calling a method.
Using a method called SetPassword wouldn't have had any major disadvantages. But I don't see any significant advantages, either.
I know this has been here for a long time, but I came across it and have a valid (imho) use-case:
When you post parameters to a webapi call from ajax, you can simply try to fill out the parameters class' properties and include validation or whatsoever.
public int MyFancyWepapiMethod([FromBody]CallParams p) {
return p.MyIntPropertyForAjax.HasValue ? p.MyIntPropertyForAjax.Value : 42;
}
public class CallParams
{
public int? MyIntPropertyForAjax;
public object TryMyIntPropertyForAjax
{
set
{
try { MyIntPropertyForAjax = Convert.ToInt32(value); }
catch { MyIntPropertyForAjax = null; }
}
}
}
On JavaScript side you can simply fill out the parameters including validation:
var callparameter = {
TryMyIntPropertyForAjax = 23
}
which is safe in this example, but if you handle userinput it might be not sure that you have a valid intvalue or something similar.