I'm working on a framework extension which handles dynamic injection using Ninject as the IoC container, but I'm having some trouble trying to work out how to achieve this.
The expectation of my framework is that you'll pass in the IModule(s) so it can easily be used in MVC, WebForms, etc. So I have the class structured like this:
public class NinjectFactory : IFactory, IDisposable {
readonly IKernel kernel;
public NinjectFactory(IModule[] modules) {
kernel = new StandardKernel(modules);
}
}
This is fine, I can create an instance in a Unit Test and pass in a basic implementation of IModule (using the build in InlineModule which seems to be recommended for testing).
The problem is that it's not until runtime that I know the type(s) I need to inject, and they are requested through the framework I'm extending, in a method like this:
public IInterface Create(Type neededType) {
}
And here's where I'm stumped, I'm not sure the best way to check->create (if required)->return, I have this so far:
public IInterface Create(Type neededType) {
if(!kernel.Components.Has(neededType)) {
kernel.Components.Connect(neededType, new StandardBindingFactory());
}
}
This adds it to the components collection, but I can't work out if it's created an instance or how I create an instance and pass in arguments for the .ctor.
Am I going about this the right way, or is Ninject not even meant to be be used that way?
Unless you want to alter or extend the internals of Ninject, you don't need to add anything to the Components collection on the kernel. To determine if a binding is available for a type, you can do something like this:
Type neededType = ...;
IKernel kernel = ...;
var registry = kernel.Components.Get<IBindingRegistry>();
if (registry.Has(neededType)) {
// Ninject can activate the type
}
Very very late answer but Microsoft.Practices.Unity allows Late Binding via App.Config
Just in case someone comes across this question
Related
To implement a plug-in system in a AspNet Core Mvc app, I would like a non-generic method to add a data context from a list of assemblies loaded dynamically at runtime, taking a Type parameter like this:
foreach(Type tp in pluginContexts)
{
services.AddDbContext(tp, options => ...);
}
instead of the usual
services.AddDbContext<PluginDataContext>(options => ...);
That's because for dynamically loaded assemblies, I can not provide the TContext type parameter to the AddDbContextPool method, since that's statically compiled and not available at compile time.
Background
This is for a larger Asp.Net Core MVC app. The plugins must be able to both access the main database of the overall app and a separate database of their own.
Plugin assemblies, containing domain code and their private database context are to be dropped in a specified directory.
The main app loads the plugin assembly dynamically upon startup.
The way I am solving this now is to have each controller get the IConfiguration instance injected, obtain the appropriate connection string from the config, and the database context is instantiated in the controller. Not so nice but does work.
One can easily inject a general class into the Services collection with AddScoped<>, and then use it as a sort of ServiceLocator - however, that is considered an antipattern.
I looked into the source code for AddDbContext but honestly I am lost.
Is there any simple way to achieve this?
Solved it by creating an extensibility point in the plugin assembly.
Define an interface in the main app, which all plugins must implement.
public interface IPluginContextRegistration
{
void RegisterContext(ref IServiceCollection services, Action<DbContextOptionsBuilder> optionsAction);
String GetDatabaseName();
}
Create a class implementing this interface (in the plugin). It has access to the type of its private database context, thus can use the generic AddDbContext method:
public class DatabaseRegistration : IPluginContextRegistration
{
public void RegisterContext(ref IServiceCollection services, Action<DbContextOptionsBuilder> optionsAction)
{
services.AddDbContext<Test1DbContext>(optionsAction);
}
public String GetDatabaseName()
{
return "test-plugin-db";
}
}
Then in the main app ASP.Net Startup.cs file, add following code, which calls the RegisterContext() method for each plugin. For example, if you want to use Sql Server:
void RegisterPluginDbContexts(ref IServiceCollection services, List<Assembly> assemblyList)
{
IEnumerable<IPluginContextRegistration> registrars = new List<IPluginContextRegistration>();
foreach (Assembly assembly in assemblyList)
{
registrars = registrars.Concat(GetClassInstances<IPluginContextRegistration>(assembly));
}
foreach (var reg in registrars)
{
String name = reg.GetDatabaseName();
String connStr = Configuration.GetConnectionString(name);
reg.RegisterContext(ref services, options => options.UseSqlServer(connStr));
}
}
For completeness - the method "GetClassInstances" is just a helper method using Reflection to obtain an instance of classes implementing the specified interface.
So it's simple after all - no need for re-writing framework code .
I'm trying to write a test for a class that has a constructor dependency on Func<T>. In order to complete successfully the function under test needs to create a number of separate objects of type T.
When running in production, AutoFac generates a new T every time factory() is called, however when writing a test using AutoMock it returns the same object when it is called again.
Test case below showing the difference in behaviour when using AutoFac and AutoMock. I'd expect both of these to pass, but the AutoMock one fails.
public class TestClass
{
private readonly Func<TestDep> factory;
public TestClass(Func<TestDep> factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public TestDep Get()
{
return factory();
}
}
public class TestDep
{}
[TestMethod()]
public void TestIt()
{
using var autoMock = AutoMock.GetStrict();
var testClass = autoMock.Create<TestClass>();
var obj1 = testClass.Get();
var obj2 = testClass.Get();
Assert.AreNotEqual(obj1, obj2);
}
[TestMethod()]
public void TestIt2()
{
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterSource(new AnyConcreteTypeNotAlreadyRegisteredSource());
var container = builder.Build();
var testClass = container.Resolve<TestClass>();
var obj1 = testClass.Get();
var obj2 = testClass.Get();
Assert.AreNotEqual(obj1, obj2);
}
AutoMock (from the Autofac.Extras.Moq package) is primarily useful for setting up complex mocks. Which is to say, you have a single object with a lot of dependencies and it's really hard to set that object up because it doesn't have a parameterless constructor. Moq doesn't let you set up objects with constructor parameters by default, so having something that fills the gap is useful.
However, the mocks you get from it are treated like any other mock you might get from Moq. When you set up a mock instance with Moq, you're not getting a new one every time unless you also implement the factory logic yourself.
AutoMock is not for mocking Autofac behavior. The Func<T> support where Autofac calls a resolve operation on every call to the Func<T> - that's Autofac, not Moq.
It makes sense for AutoMock to use InstancePerLifetimeScope because, just like setting up mocks with plain Moq, you need to be able to get the mock instance back to configure it and validate against it. It would be much harder if it was new every time.
Obviously there are ways to work around that, and with a non-trivial amount of breaking changes you could probably implement InstancePerDependency semantics in there, but there's really not much value in doing that at this point since that's not really what this is for... and you could always create two different AutoMock instances to get two different mocks.
A much better way to go, in general, is to provide useful abstractions and use Autofac with mocks in the container.
For example, say you have something like...
public class ThingToTest
{
public ThingToTest(PackageSender sender) { /* ... */ }
}
public class PackageSender
{
public PackageSender(AddressChecker checker, DataContext context) { /* ... */ }
}
public class AddressChecker { }
public class DataContext { }
If you're trying to set up ThingToTest, you can see how also setting up a PackageSender is going to be complex, and you'd likely want something like AutoMock to handle that.
However, you can make your life easier by introducing an interface there.
public class ThingToTest
{
public ThingToTest(IPackageSender sender) { /* ... */ }
}
public interface IPackageSender { }
public class PackageSender : IPackageSender { }
By hiding all the complexity behind the interface, you now can mock just IPackageSender using plain Moq (or whatever other mocking framework you like, or even creating a manual stub implementation). You wouldn't even need to include Autofac in the mix because you could mock the dependency directly and pass it in.
Point being, you can design your way into making testing and setup easier, which is why, in the comments on your question, I asked why you were doing things that way (which, at the time of this writing, never did get answered). I would strongly recommend designing things to be easier to test if possible.
I've an existing WPF application based on caliburn micro MVVM pattern which was using Ideablade/cocktail for accessing to database. Now I've switched to servicestack and I was keeping on cocktail just for the composition pattern. Since I've noticed it takes quite a bit long to start the application I've done some test and Ninject performs better.
I find extremly usefull the MEF approach of defining the Export/ImportingConstrucor approach but and I was wondering how I can have it with Ninject... is it possible?
In my current implementation I've something as
[Export(typeof(IMyInterface))]
[Export(typeof(MyFirstViewModel))]
public class MyFirstViewModel:IMyInterface
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public MyFirstViewModel(IEventAggregator eventAggregator)รน
{
}
}
I've seend that in ninject I've to define something as
mKernel.Bind<MyFirstViewModel>().To<MyFirstViewModel>();
mKernel.Bind<MyFirstViewModel>().To<MyFirstViewModel>();
Can it be automatic?
Can I also define a funct to resolve when not found?
Thanks
StackTrace :
at Caliburn.Micro.IoC.<.cctor>b__0(Type service, String key) in c:\Users\Rob\Documents \CodePlex\caliburnmicro\src\Caliburn.Micro.Silverlight\IoC.cs:line 13
at Caliburn.Micro.IoC.Get[T](String key) in c:\Users\Rob\Documents\CodePlex\caliburnmicro\src\Caliburn.Micro.Silverlight\IoC.cs:line 32
at myApp.Modules.Core.Framework.ViewModels.myAppScreenBase`1..ctor() in c:\Projects\myApp\branches\myApp-branch-20140526\myApp\Core\Framework\ViewModels\myAppScreenBase.cs:line 44
at myApp.Modules.Core.Framework.ViewModels.myAppSimpleScreen`1..ctor() in c:\Projects\myApp\branches\myApp-branch-20140526\myApp\Core\Framework\ViewModels\myAppSimpleScreen.cs:line 8
at myApp.Modules.AdE.ViewModels.CMATCLIDDelegheViewModel..ctor(IAdERepository repository, IDialogManager dialogManager, ICommonRepository commonRepository) in c:\Projects\myApp\branches\myApp-branch-20140526\myApp\Modules.AdE\ViewModels\CMATCLIDDelegheViewModel.cs:line 56
at DynamicInjector1033b54d439c44dbaa064db1c7e82f18(Object[] )
at Ninject.Activation.Providers.StandardProvider.Create(IContext context)
at Ninject.Activation.Context.ResolveInternal(Object scope)
at Ninject.Activation.Context.Resolve()
at Ninject.KernelBase.<>c__DisplayClass15.<Resolve>b__f(IBinding binding)
at System.Linq.Enumerable.WhereSelectListIterator`2.MoveNext()
at System.Linq.Enumerable.<CastIterator>d__b1`1.MoveNext()
at System.Linq.SystemCore_EnumerableDebugView`1.get_Items()
RepositoryExport :
public class RepositoryBindingGenerator : IBindingGenerator
{
public IEnumerable<IBindingWhenInNamedWithOrOnSyntax<object>> CreateBindings(Type type, IBindingRoot bindingRoot)
{
foreach (var attribute in type.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(RepositoryAttribute), false)
.OfType<RepositoryAttribute>())
{
yield return bindingRoot
.Bind(attribute.ContractType ?? type)
.To(type).InSingletonScope();
}
}
}
but I got this compile error
Error 19 Cannot implicitly convert type 'Ninject.Syntax.IBindingNamedWithOrOnSyntax' to 'Ninject.Syntax.IBindingWhenInNamedWithOrOnSyntax'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?)
Depending on the configuration of ninject (by default its enabled) you don't need to bind a type to itself, ninject will resolve it automatically. So mKernel.Bind<MyFirstViewModel>().To<MyFirstViewModel>(); is superfluous. Remark: Creating the binding anyway also works.
However, if you want to bind Bar to IFoo or Foo to IFoo you need to bind it.
With it you can tell ninject to look for all types with an [Export] attribute and bind these.
Here comes the ninject conventions extension to the rescue. Get the ninject.extensions.conventions nuget package.
Then create a convention binding:
kernel.Bind(x => x
.FromThisAssembly()
.SelectAllClasses()
.WithAttribute<ExportAttribute>()
.BindWith<ExportBindingGenerator>());
public class ExportBindingGenerator : IBindingGenerator
{
public IEnumerable<IBindingWhenInNamedWithOrOnSyntax<object>> CreateBindings(Type type, IBindingRoot bindingRoot)
{
foreach (var attribute in type.GetCustomAttributes<ExportAttribute>())
{
yield return bindingRoot
.Bind(attribute.ContractType)
.To(type);
}
}
}
Things get a bit more complicated when you need to also use the [ImportingConstructor] attribute to tell ninject which constructor to use. But i would suppose that you don't need it, since Ninject's auto-constructor-selection. What you can do however is replace all [ImportingConstructor] attributes with Ninject's [Inject] attribute which does exactly the same.
Notes:
You may need to use another method than .FromThisAssembly() to specify all the assemblies which contain the implementation types.
If the implementation types are not public, you need to add IncludeNonePublicTypes() to the convention.
Hi I have a problem with the structure of my code, it somehow goes into Circular Dependency. Here is an explanation of how my code looks like:
I have a ProjectA contains BaseProcessor and BaseProcessor has a reference to a class called Structure in ProjectB. Inside BaseProcessor, there is an instance of Structure as a variable.
In projectB there are someother classes such as Pricing, Transaction etc.
Every class in ProjectB has a base class called BaseStructure i.e. Structure, Pricing and Transaction classes all inherited from BaseStructure.
Now in Pricing and Transaction classes, I want to call a method in BaseProcessor class from BaseStructure class which causing Circular Dependency.
What I have tried is:
Using Unity, but I didn't figure out how to make it work because I try to use function like:
unityContainer.ReferenceType(IBaseProcessor, BaseProcessor)
in BaseStructure then it will need a reference of BaseProcessor which also cause Circular Dependency.
And I've also tried creating an interface of IBaseProcessor and create a function(the function I want to call) declaration in this interface. And let both BaseProcessor and BaseStructure inherit this interface. But how can I call the function in Pricing and Transaction class without create an instance of BaseProcessor?
Can anyone please tell me how to resolve this problem other than using reflection?
Any help will be much appreciated. Thanks :)
You could use the lazy resolution:
public class Pricing {
private Lazy<BaseProcessor> proc;
public Pricing(Lazy<BaseProcessor> proc) {
this.proc = proc;
}
void Foo() {
this.proc.Value.DoSomethin();
}
}
Note that you haven't to register the Lazy because Unity will resolve it by BaseProcessor registration.
Your DI container can't help solving the circular reference, since it is the dependency structure of the application that prevents objects from being created. Even without a DI container, you can't construct your object graphs without some special 'tricks'.
Do note that in most cases cyclic dependency graphs are a sign of a design flaw in your application, so you might want to consider taking a very close look at your design and see if this can't be solved by extracting logic into separate classes.
But if this is not an option, there are basically two ways of resolving this cyclic dependency graph. Either you need to fallback to property injection, or need to postpone resolving the component with a factory, Func<T>, or like #onof proposed with a Lazy<T>.
Within these two flavors, there are a lot of possible ways to do this, for instance by falling back to property injection into your application (excuse my C#):
public class BaseStructure {
public BaseStructure(IDependency d1) { ... }
// Break the dependency cycle using a property
public IBaseProcessor Processor { get; set; }
}
This moves the IBaseProcessor dependency from the constructor to a property and allows you to set it after the graph is constructed. Here's an example of an object graph that is built manually:
var structure = new Structure(new SomeDependency());
var processor = new BaseProcessor(structure);
// Set the property after the graph has been constructed.
structure.Processor = processor;
A better option is to hide the property inside your Composition Root. This makes your application design cleaner, since you can keep using constructor injection. Example:
public class BaseStructure {
// vanilla constructor injection here
public BaseStructure(IDependency d1, IBaseProcessor processor) { ... }
}
// Defined inside your Composition Root.
private class CyclicDependencyBreakingProcessor : IBaseProcessor {
public IBaseProcessor WrappedProcessor { get; set; }
void IBaseProcessor.TheMethod() {
// forward the call to the real processor.
this.WrappedProcessor.TheMethod();
}
}
Now instead of injecting the BaseProcessor into your Structure, you inject the CyclicDependencyBreakingProcessor, which will be further initialized after the construction of the graph:
var cyclicBreaker = new CyclicDependencyBreakingProcessor();
var processor = new BaseProcessor(new Structure(new SomeDependency(), cyclicBreaker));
// Set the property after the graph has been constructed.
cyclicBreaker.WrappedProcessor = processor;
This is basically the same as before, but now the application stays oblivious from the fact that there is a cyclic dependency that needed to be broken.
Instead of using property injection, you can also use Lazy<T>, but just as with the property injection, it is best to hide this implementation detail inside your Composition Root, and don't let Lazy<T> values leak into your application, since this just adds noise to your application, which makes your code more complex and harder to test. Besides, the application shouldn't care that the dependency injection is delayed. Just as with Func<T> (and IEnumerable<T>), when injecting a Lazy<T> the dependency is defined with a particular implementation in mind and we're leaking implementation details. So it's better to do the following:
public class BaseStructure {
// vanilla constructor injection here
public BaseStructure(IDependency d1, IBaseProcessor processor) { ... }
}
// Defined inside your Composition Root.
public class CyclicDependencyBreakingProcessor : IBaseProcessor {
public CyclicDependencyBreakingBaseProcessor(Lazy<IBaseProcessor> processor) {...}
void IBaseProcessor.TheMethod() {
this.processor.Value.TheMethod();
}
}
With the following wiring:
IBaseProcessor value = null;
var cyclicBreaker = new CyclicDependencyBreakingProcessor(
new Lazy<IBaseProcessor>(() => value));
var processor = new BaseProcessor(new Structure(new SomeDependency(), cyclicBreaker));
// Set the value after the graph has been constructed.
value = processor;
Up until now I only showed how to build up the object graph manually. When doing this using a DI container, you usually want to let the DI container build up the complete graph for you, since this yields a more maintainable Composition Root. But this can make it a bit more tricky to break the cyclic dependencies. In most cases the trick is to register the component that you want to break with a caching lifestyle (basically anything else than transient). Per Web Request Lifestyle for instance. This allows you to get the same instance in a lazy fashion.
Using the last CyclicDependencyBreakingProcessor example, we can create the following Unity registration:
container.Register<BaseProcessor>(new PerRequestLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<IStructure, Structure>();
container.RegisterType<IDependency, SomeDependenc>();
container.Register<IBaseProcessor>(new InjectionFactory(c =>
new CyclicDependencyBreakingProcessor(
new Lazy<IBaseProcessor>(() => c.GetInstance<BaseProcessor>())));
I'm studying MEF and I'm not able to resolve a problem.
I have a main application, called MainMEF, and a simple module, called SimpleModule. This one consists of a single UserControl which is loaded dynamically.
When MainMEF starts up, I would be able to pass to the module a reference to main application contained into MainMEF.
How could I fix this?
Lots of questions regarding this already.
You could pass it after initialisation using a property:
How do I populate a MEF plugin with data that is not hard coded into the assembly?
Or use MEF constructor parameters:
MEF Constructor Parameters with Multiple Constructors
The export looks something like this:
[Export(typeof(ITest))]
class Test : ITest
{
void Test()
{ }
[ImportingConstructor] //<- This is the key bit here
void Test(object parameter)
{ }
}
Then when composing your catalog do this:
catalog.ComposeExportedValue( /* parameter here */);
catalog.ComposeParts(this);