I have a WCF service that will be called from a various clients.
Internally the WCF service uses an ISomething. There are multiple implementations of this interface and I need some clients to use one implementation and other clients to use a different implementation.
In addition, I am using Unity and an IoC container. I would typically set up a custom factory to allow the wcf service itself to be resolved along with its dependency graph, but if I have multiple implementations of a dependency, I do not think I can go with this approach and would have to resort to resolving the ISomething within the service (effectively using Unity as a service locator) which is not ideal.
So I need to work out
(1) how to specify which implementation of ISomething a client needs (eg. use a header, pass implementation string in each method, host multiple endpoints etc.)
(2) how Unity fits in?
One option is to write a Decorator that performs the selection for you:
public class RoutingSomething : ISomething
{
private readonly ISomeContext ctx;
private readonly ISomething s1;
private readonly ISomething s2;
private readonly ISomething s3;
public RoutingSomething(ISomeContext ctx)
{
this.ctx = ctx;
// An even better design would be to inject these too
this.s1 = new BarSomething();
this.s2 = new BazSomething();
this.s3 = new QuxSomething();
}
// Assuming ISomething has a Foo method:
public void Foo()
{
if(this.ctx.Bar())
{
this.s1.Foo();
return;
}
if(this.ctx.Baz())
{
this.s2.Foo();
return;
}
if(this.ctx.Qux())
{
this.s3.Foo();
return;
}
}
}
You could generalize this so that ISomeContext is simply an Abstract Factory of ISomething. This then begins to turn into the general solution to varying dependencies based on run-time context.
You can now register RoutingSomething in Unity in addition to your other components. When the container resolves the service, it'll inject an instance of RoutingSomething into it.
Related
In DDD, is the application layer who uses the repository to get the data from database, call the methods of the domain and then call the repository to persists the data. Something like that:
public void MyApplicationService()
{
Order myOrder = _orderRepository.Get(1);
myOrder.Update(data);
_orderRepository.Commit();
}
In this example the repository is a class variable that it is instantiate in the constructor of the service, so its life is the life of the class.
But I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to instantiate a repository for each action that I want to do, to have a shorter life, because if not, if I use the class for many actions, the repository will have many entities that perhaps it will not need more.
So I was thinking in a solution like this:
public void MyApplicationService()
{
OrderRepository myOrderRepository = new OrderRepository(_options);
Order myOrder = myOrderRepository.GetOrder(1);
myOrder.Update(data);
myOrderRepository.Commit();
myOrderRepository.Dispose();
}
So a new instance each time I need to do the action.
So in sumary, I would like to know about the differents solutions and the advantages and disadvanges to decide the lifespan of the repository.
Thanks.
The recommended lifespan of the repository is one business transaction.
Your second patch of code is correct in that aspect, however it has one drawback: you have created a strong dependency between the ApplicationService and OrderRepository classes. With your code, you are not able to isolate both class in order to unit test them separately. Also, you need to update the ApplicationService class whenever you change the constructor of the OrderRepository. If OrderRepository requires parameters to construct, then you have to construct them (which implies to reference their type and base types), despite this being an implementation detail of OrderRepository (needed for data persistence store access) and not needed for your application service layer.
For these reasons, most of modern program development rely on a pattern called Dependency Injection (DI). With DI, you specify that your ApplicationService class depends on an instance of the OrderRepository class, or better, an interface IOrderRepository whom the OrderRepository class implements. The dependency is declared by adding a parameter in the ApplicationService constructor:
public interface IOrderRepository : IDisposable
{
Order GetOrder(int id);
void Commit();
}
public class ApplicationService
{
private readonly OrderRepository orderRepository;
public ApplicationService(IOrderRepository orderRepository)
{
this.orderRepository = orderRepository ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(orderRepository));
}
public void Update(int id, string data)
{
Order myOrder = orderRepository.Get(id);
myOrder.Update(data);
orderRepository.Commit();
}
}
Now the DI library is responsible to construct OrderRepository and inject the instance in the ApplicationService class. If OrderRepository has its own dependencies, the library will resolve them first and construct the whole object graph so you don't have to do that yourself. You simply need to tell your DI library what specific implementation you want for each referenced interface. For example in C#:
public IServiceCollection AddServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
return services.AddScoped<IOrderRepository,OrderRepository>();
}
When unit testing your code, you can replace the actual implementation of OrderRepository with a mock object, such as Mock<IOrderRepository> or your own MockOrderRepository implementation. The code under test is then exactly the code in production, all wiring being done by the DI framework.
Most modern DI libraries have support for object lifetime management, including transient (always resolve a new object), singleton (always reuse the same object), or scoped (each scope has a single instance). The latter is what is used to isolate objects instance per business transaction, using a singleton ScopeFactory to create scopes whenever you start a business transaction:
public class UpdateOrderUseCase : UseCase
{
private readonly IScopeFactory scopeFactory;
public UpdateOrderUseCase(IScopeFactory scopeFactory) // redacted
public void UpdateOrder(int id, string data)
{
using var scope = scopeFactory.CreateScope();
var orderRepository = scope.GetService<IOrderRepository>();
var order = orderRepository.Get(id);
order.Update(data);
orderRepository.Commit();
// disposing the scope will also dispose the object graph
}
}
When you implement a REST service, that transaction usually corresponds to one HTTP request. Modern frameworks, such as asp.net core, will automatically create scopes per HTTP request and use that to resolve your dependency graph later in the framework internals. This means you don't even have to handle the ScopeFactory yourself.
I have an ASP.NET Core application. The application has few helper classes that does some work. Each class has different signature method. I see lot of .net core examples online that create interface for each class and then register types with DI framework. For example
public interface IStorage
{
Task Download(string file);
}
public class Storage
{
public Task Download(string file)
{
}
}
public interface IOcr
{
Task Process();
}
public class Ocr:IOcr
{
public Task Process()
{
}
}
Basically for each interface there is only one class. Then i register these types with DI as
services.AddScoped<IStorage, Storage>();
services.AddScoped<IOcr,Ocr>();
But i can register type without having interfaces so interfaces here look redundant. eg
services.AddScoped<Storage>();
services.AddScoped<Ocr>();
So do i really need interfaces?
No, you don't need interfaces for dependency injection. But dependency injection is much more useful with them!
As you noticed, you can register concrete types with the service collection and ASP.NET Core will inject them into your classes without problems. The benefit you get by injecting them over simply creating instances with new Storage() is service lifetime management (transient vs. scoped vs. singleton).
That's useful, but only part of the power of using DI. As #DavidG pointed out, the big reason why interfaces are so often paired with DI is because of testing. Making your consumer classes depend on interfaces (abstractions) instead of other concrete classes makes them much easier to test.
For example, you could create a MockStorage that implements IStorage for use during testing, and your consumer class shouldn't be able to tell the difference. Or, you can use a mocking framework to easily create a mocked IStorage on the fly. Doing the same thing with concrete classes is much harder. Interfaces make it easy to replace implementations without changing the abstraction.
Does it work? Yes. Should you do it? No.
Dependency Injection is a tool for the principle of Dependency Inversion : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_inversion_principle
Or as it's described in SOLID
one should “depend upon abstractions, [not] concretions."
You can just inject concrete classes all over the place and it will work. But it's not what DI was designed to achieve.
No, we don't need interfaces. In addition to injecting classes or interfaces you can also inject delegates. It's comparable to injecting an interface with one method.
Example:
public delegate int DoMathFunction(int value1, int value2);
public class DependsOnMathFunction
{
private readonly DoMathFunction _doMath;
public DependsOnAFunction(DoMathFunction doMath)
{
_doMath = doMath;
}
public int DoSomethingWithNumbers(int number1, int number2)
{
return _doMath(number1, number2);
}
}
You could do it without declaring a delegate, just injecting a Func<Something, Whatever> and that will also work. I'd lean toward the delegate because it's easier to set up DI. You might have two delegates with the same signature that serve unrelated purposes.
One benefit to this is that it steers the code toward interface segregation. Someone might be tempted to add a method to an interface (and its implementation) because it's already getting injected somewhere so it's convenient.
That means
The interface and implementation gain responsibility they possibly shouldn't have just because it's convenient for someone in the moment.
The class that depends on the interface can also grow in its responsibility but it's harder to identify because the number of its dependencies hasn't grown.
Other classes end up depending on the bloated, less-segregated interface.
I've seen cases where a single dependency eventually grows into what should really be two or three entirely separate classes, all because it was convenient to add to an existing interface and class instead of injecting something new. That in turn helped some classes on their way to becoming 2,500 lines long.
You can't prevent someone doing what they shouldn't. You can't stop someone from just making a class depend on 10 different delegates. But it can set a pattern that guides future growth in the right direction and provides some resistance to growing interfaces and classes out control.
(This doesn't mean don't use interfaces. It means that you have options.)
I won't try to cover what others have already mentioned, using interfaces with DI will often be the best option. But it's worth mentioning that using object inheritance at times may provide another useful option. So for example:
public class Storage
{
public virtual Task Download(string file)
{
}
}
public class DiskStorage: Storage
{
public override Task Download(string file)
{
}
}
and registering it like so:
services.AddScoped<Storage, DiskStorage>();
Without Interface
public class Benefits
{
public void BenefitForTeacher() { }
public void BenefitForStudent() { }
}
public class Teacher : Benefits
{
private readonly Benefits BT;
public Teacher(Benefits _BT)
{ BT = _BT; }
public void TeacherBenefit()
{
base.BenefitForTeacher();
base.BenefitForStudent();
}
}
public class Student : Benefits
{
private readonly Benefits BS;
public Student(Benefits _BS)
{ BS = _BS; }
public void StudentBenefit()
{
base.BenefitForTeacher();
base.BenefitForStudent();
}
}
here you can see benefits for Teachers is accessible in Student class and benefits for Student is accessible in Teacher class which is wrong.
Lets see how can we resolve this problem using interface
With Interface
public interface IBenefitForTeacher
{
void BenefitForTeacher();
}
public interface IBenefitForStudent
{
void BenefitForStudent();
}
public class Benefits : IBenefitForTeacher, IBenefitForStudent
{
public Benefits() { }
public void BenefitForTeacher() { }
public void BenefitForStudent() { }
}
public class Teacher : IBenefitForTeacher
{
private readonly IBenefitForTeacher BT;
public Teacher(IBenefitForTeacher _BT)
{ BT = _BT; }
public void BenefitForTeacher()
{
BT.BenefitForTeacher();
}
}
public class Student : IBenefitForStudent
{
private readonly IBenefitForStudent BS;
public Student(IBenefitForStudent _BS)
{ BS = _BS; }
public void BenefitForStudent()
{
BS.BenefitForStudent();
}
}
Here you can see there is no way to call Teacher benefits in Student class and Student benefits in Teacher class
So interface is used here as an abstraction layer.
I am trying to consume WCF in my MVC web app. I have implemented the channel factory for instantiating the proxy client.
I am stuck at a point. Here is the code highlight -
I created a proxy base class where i am creating the channel :
public abstract class ServiceProxyBase<T> : IDisposable where T : class
For creating teh proxy wrapper class i have inherited this base class as :
public class ProxyWrapper : ServiceProxyBase<IMyService>,IMyService
Here "IMyService" is the WCf contract.
Now, in the controllers i have added overloaded constructors as :
public class AccountController : Controller
{
private IMyService businessService;
public AccountController(IMyService _businessService)
{
this.businessService = _businessService;
}
}
For injecting dependency I have included unity.mvc4 package.
It works fine when I am using the following code :
container.RegisterType<IMyService, ProxyWrapper>();
This works as long as the ProxyWrapper is inheriting the IMyService interface directly. If i remove the inheritance like
public class ProxyWrapper : ServiceProxyBase<IMyService>
it gives an error while registering type.
I would like to have a way without inherting the contract in the proxy wrapper. I have spent almost a day trying to fix this. But am able to figure out a solution.
Please give your valuable suggestions on this.
If I understand correctly, your application is using a WCF service but the functionality your application needs is limited compared to the functionality that the service offers (it contains more methods than you need). According to the Interface Segregation Principle, "no client should be forced to depend on methods it does not use" and the Dependency Inversion Principle states that clients own the abstraction.
In other words, you should define your own interface that the application should use and define an implementation that wraps (i.e. composition over inheritance) the generated WCF proxy class.
For instance:
public interface IMyApplicationService
{
object GetStuff();
void PutStuff(object instance);
}
public class MyServiceApplicationProxy : IMyApplicationService
{
private readonly ProxyWrapper wcfProxy;
public MyServiceApplicationProxy(ProxyWrapper wcfProxy) {
this.wcfProxy = wcfProxy;
}
public object GetStuff() {
return this.wcfProxy.GetStuff();
}
public void PutStuff(object instance) {
this.wcfProxy.PutStuff(instance);
}
}
To make application development easier, makes your code easier to read, maintain and test.
You might even want to change the methods of your interface to better suit your application needs. Remember: the client defines the interface! So that might mean that you need to do more mapping inside the MyServiceApplicationProxy class to map adapt your core domain to the contract of the external web service. Don't let the external WCF service's contract leak into your core domain.
On my service layer I have injected an UnitOfWork and 2 repositories in the constructor. The Unit of Work and repository have an instance of a DbContext I want to share between the two of them. How can I do that with Ninject ? Which scope should be considered ?
I am not in a web application so I can't use InRequestScope.
I try to do something similar... and I am using DI however, I need my UoW to be Disposed and created like this.
using (IUnitOfWork uow = new UnitOfWorkFactory.Create())
{
_testARepository.Insert(a);
_testBRepository.Insert(b);
uow.SaveChanges();
}
EDIT: I just want to be sure i understand… after look at https://github.com/ninject/ninject.extensions.namedscope/wiki/InNamedScope i though about my current console application architecture which actually use Ninject.
Lets say :
Class A is a Service layer class
Class B is an unit of work which take into parameter an interface (IContextFactory)
Class C is a repository which take into parameter an interface (IContextFactory)
The idea here is to be able to do context operations on 2 or more repository and using the unit of work to apply the changes.
Class D is a context factory (Entity Framework) which provide an instance (keep in a container) of the context which is shared between Class B et C (.. and would be for other repositories aswell).
The context factory keep the instance in his container so i don’t want to reuse this instance all the name since the context need to be disposed at the end of the service operaiton.. it is the main purpose of the InNamedScope actually ?
The solution would be but i am not sure at all i am doing it right, the services instance gonna be transcient which mean they actually never disposed ? :
Bind<IScsContextFactory>()
.To<ScsContextFactory>()
.InNamedScope("ServiceScope")
.WithConstructorArgument(
"connectionString",
ConfigurationUtility.GetConnectionString());
Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<ScsUnitOfWork>();
Bind<IAccountRepository>().To<AccountRepository>();
Bind<IBlockedIpRepository>().To<BlockedIpRepository>();
Bind<IAccountService>().To<AccountService>().DefinesNamedScope("ServiceScope");
Bind<IBlockedIpService>().To<BlockedIpService>().DefinesNamedScope("ServiceScope");
UPDATE: This approach works against NuGet current, but relies in an anomaly in the InCallscope implementation which has been fixed in the current Unstable NuGet packages. I'll be tweaking this answer in a few days to reflect the best approach after some mulling over. NB the high level way of structuring stuff will stay pretty much identical, just the exact details of the Bind<DbContext>() scoping will work. (Hint: CreateNamedScope in unstable would work or one could set up the Command Handler as DefinesNamedScope. Reason I dont just do that is that I want to have something that composes/plays well with InRequestScope)
I highly recommend reading the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope integration tests (seriously, find them and read and re-read them)
The DbContext is a Unit Of Work so no further wrapping is necessary.
As you want to be able to have multiple 'requests' in flight and want to have a single Unit of Work shared between them, you need to:
Bind<DbContext>()
.ToMethod( ctx =>
new DbContext(
connectionStringName: ConfigurationUtility.GetConnectionString() ))
.InCallScope();
The InCallScope() means that:
for a given object graph composed for a single kernel.Get() Call (hence In Call Scope), everyone that requires an DbContext will get the same instance.
the IDisposable.Dispose() will be called when a Kernel.Release() happens for the root object (or a Kernel.Components.Get<ICache>().Clear() happens for the root if it is not .InCallScope())
There should be no reason to use InNamedScope() and DefinesNamedScope(); You don't have long-lived objects you're trying to exclude from the default pooling / parenting / grouping.
If you do the above, you should be able to:
var command = kernel.Get<ICommand>();
try {
command.Execute();
} finally {
kernel.Components.Get<ICache>().Clear( command ); // Dispose of DbContext happens here
}
The Command implementation looks like:
class Command : ICommand {
readonly IAccountRepository _ar;
readonly IBlockedIpRepository _br;
readonly DbContext _ctx;
public Command(IAccountRepository ar, IBlockedIpRepository br, DbContext ctx){
_ar = ar;
_br = br;
_ctx = ctx;
}
void ICommand.Execute(){
_ar.Insert(a);
_br.Insert(b);
_ctx.saveChanges();
}
}
Note that in general, I avoid having an implicit Unit of Work in this way, and instead surface it's creation and Disposal. This makes a Command look like this:
class Command : ICommand {
readonly IAccountService _as;
readonly IBlockedIpService _bs;
readonly Func<DbContext> _createContext;
public Command(IAccountService #as, IBlockedIpServices bs, Func<DbContext> createContext){
_as = #as;
_bs = bs;
_createContext = createContext;
}
void ICommand.Execute(){
using(var ctx = _createContext()) {
_ar.InsertA(ctx);
_br.InsertB(ctx);
ctx.saveChanges();
}
}
This involves no usage of .InCallScope() on the Bind<DbContext>() (but does require the presence of Ninject.Extensions.Factory's FactoryModule to synthesize the Func<DbContext> from a straightforward Bind<DbContext>().
As discussed in the other answer, InCallScope is not a good approach to solving this problem.
For now I'm dumping some code that works against the latest NuGet Unstable / Include PreRelease / Instal-Package -Pre editions of Ninject.Web.Common without a clear explanation. I will translate this to an article in the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope wiki at some stagehave started to write a walkthrough of this technique in the Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope wiki's CreateNamedScope/GetScope article.
Possibly some bits will become Pull Request(s) at some stage too (Hat tip to #Remo Gloor who supplied me the outline code). The associated tests and learning tests are in this gist for now), pending packaging in a proper released format TBD.
The exec summary is you Load the Module below into your Kernel and use .InRequestScope() on everything you want created / Disposed per handler invocation and then feed requests through via IHandlerComposer.ComposeCallDispose.
If you use the following Module:
public class Module : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IHandlerComposer>().To<NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer>();
// Wire it up so InRequestScope will work for Handler scopes
Bind<INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory>().To<NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory>();
NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory.NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.RegisterIn( Kernel );
}
}
Which wires in a Factory[1] and NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin that exposes:
public interface INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory
{
NamedScope CreateRequestHandlerScope();
}
Then you can use this Composer to Run a Request InRequestScope():
public interface IHandlerComposer
{
void ComposeCallDispose( Type type, Action<object> callback );
}
Implemented as:
class NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer : IHandlerComposer
{
readonly INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory _requestHandlerScopeFactory;
public NinjectRequestScopedHandlerComposer( INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory requestHandlerScopeFactory )
{
_requestHandlerScopeFactory = requestHandlerScopeFactory;
}
void IHandlerComposer.ComposeCallDispose( Type handlerType, Action<object> callback )
{
using ( var resolutionRoot = _requestHandlerScopeFactory.CreateRequestHandlerScope() )
foreach ( object handler in resolutionRoot.GetAll( handlerType ) )
callback( handler );
}
}
The Ninject Infrastructure stuff:
class NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory : INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory
{
internal const string ScopeName = "Handler";
readonly IKernel _kernel;
public NinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory( IKernel kernel )
{
_kernel = kernel;
}
NamedScope INinjectRequestHandlerScopeFactory.CreateRequestHandlerScope()
{
return _kernel.CreateNamedScope( ScopeName );
}
/// <summary>
/// When plugged in as a Ninject Kernel Component via <c>RegisterIn(IKernel)</c>, makes the Named Scope generated during IHandlerFactory.RunAndDispose available for use via the Ninject.Web.Common's <c>.InRequestScope()</c> Binding extension.
/// </summary>
public class NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin : NinjectComponent, INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin
{
readonly IKernel kernel;
public static void RegisterIn( IKernel kernel )
{
kernel.Components.Add<INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin, NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin>();
}
public NinjectHttpApplicationPlugin( IKernel kernel )
{
this.kernel = kernel;
}
object INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.GetRequestScope( IContext context )
{
// TODO PR for TrgGetScope
try
{
return NamedScopeExtensionMethods.GetScope( context, ScopeName );
}
catch ( UnknownScopeException )
{
return null;
}
}
void INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.Start()
{
}
void INinjectHttpApplicationPlugin.Stop()
{
}
}
}
I just recently started using Ninject (v2.2.0.0) in my ASP.NET MVC 3 application. So far I'm thrilled with it, but I ran into a situation I can't seem to figure out.
What I'd like to do is bind an interface to concrete implementations and have Ninject be able to inject the concrete implementation into a constructor using a factory (that will also be registered with Ninject). The problem is that I'd like my constructor to reference the concrete type, not the interface.
Here is an example:
public class SomeInterfaceFactory<T> where T: ISomeInterface, new()
{
public T CreateInstance()
{
// Activation and initialization logic here
}
}
public interface ISomeInterface
{
}
public class SomeImplementationA : ISomeInterface
{
public string PropertyA { get; set; }
}
public class SomeImplementationB : ISomeInterface
{
public string PropertyB { get; set; }
}
public class Foo
{
public Foo(SomeImplementationA implA)
{
Console.WriteLine(implA.PropertyA);
}
}
public class Bar
{
public Bar(SomeImplementationB implB)
{
Console.WriteLine(implB.PropertyB);
}
}
Elsewhere, I'd like to bind using just the interface:
kernel.Bind<Foo>().ToSelf();
kernel.Bind<Bar>().ToSelf();
kernel.Bind(typeof(SomeInterfaceFactory<>)).ToSelf();
kernel.Bind<ISomeInterface>().To ...something that will create and use the factory
Then, when requesting an instance of Foo from Ninject, it would see that one of the constructors parameters implements a bound interface, fetch the factory, and instantiate the correct concrete type (SomeImplementationA) and pass it to Foo's constructor.
The reason behind this is that I will have many implementations of ISomeInterface and I'd prefer to avoid having to bind each one individually. Some of these implementations may not be known at compile time.
I tried using:
kernel.Bind<ISomeInterface>().ToProvider<SomeProvider>();
The provider retrieves the factory based on the requested service type then calls its CreateInstance method, returning the concrete type:
public class SomeProvider : Provider<ISomeInterface>
{
protected override ISomeInterface CreateInstance(IContext context)
{
var factory = context.Kernel.Get(typeof(SomeInterfaceFactory<>)
.MakeGenericType(context.Request.Service));
var method = factory.GetType().GetMethod("CreateInstance");
return (ISomeInterface)method.Invoke();
}
}
However, my provider was never invoked.
I'm curious if Ninject can support this situation and, if so, how I might go about solving this problem.
I hope this is enough information to explain my situation. Please let me know if I should elaborate further.
Thank you!
It seems you have misunderstood how ninject works. In case you create Foo it sees that it requires a SomeImplementationA and will try to create an instance for it. So you need to define a binding for SomeImplementationA and not for ISomeInterface.
Also most likely your implementation breaks the Dependency Inversion Princple because you rely upon concrete instances instead of abstractions.
The solution to register all similar types at once (and the prefered way to configure IoC containers) is to use configuration by conventions. See the Ninject.Extensions.Conventions extenstion.