I'm in the early stages of building a new N-tier application. I'm using Entity Framework in the data layer and am going to use an IDbConnectionInterceptor to set the tenant ID prior to executing queries in order to take advantage of SQL Server 2016 Row Level Security. The only way I'm aware of to add this interceptor is to call
System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.Interception.DbInterception.Add(new MyContextInterceptor(tenantIDProvider));
So I've put this into a static Initialize() method that the consuming application must call when it starts up. Is there a way to automatically add this interceptor by default so that the consuming application doesn't have to know or remember to call Initialize() on my class library when it starts up? If it can't automatically happen, can I at least do it in a config file somehow?
Related
In my Windows Phone App there's a simple hierarchical model consisting of a class containing a collection of other domain objects.
In my xaml i have declared an ItemsContainer control that renders the items in the above mentioned collection as simple rectangles.
Now, at the VM level i have a structure that resembles my model with a parent VM having a collection of children VMs. Each child-VM encapsulates its own model.
Whenever the user taps the view bound to a child-VM a method of the parent-model object should be invoked taking the relevant child-model as parameter. This will in turn change some internal state that will be reflected (possibly) on all the child-views (not just the tapped one).
SO... given that i'm using the MVVM Light framework my current implementation is as follows:
Child-VM exposes a command
The command Execute method will use the messenger to notify the parent-VM of the tap event. The message (GenericMessage class) content will be the domain object encapsulated by the VM
The parent-VM executes the method of the parent-model using the message content as parameter
If the operation succeeds the parent-VM sends a new message to inform child-VMs of this fact. Once again the message content is the model object used as parameter in the method that was just invoked
Child-VMs raise a couple of PropertyChanged events that, finally, will update the bound views
It works but i fill it's a bit cumbersome. The thing that bugs me the most is the fact that when a child-view is tapped the associated VM will broadcast its encapsulated model object. Do you feel that there would be a better way of implementing such a system?
Thanks in advance for your precious help
Could you not just put the command on the parent viewmodel and pass the child viewmodel as the command parameter?
The parent view model can then just call methods on the child viewmodels to update them. I'm not sure I see the need for all these messages?
I've been running into endless problems attempting to use Windsor with Web API and injecting HttpRequestMessage into downstream dependencies of a controller. Since I've tried all the matching answers on Stackoverflow, I'd like to ask the question in a different way:
In Castle Windsor, how can I resolve a component instance while supplying a value for a downstream dependency? That is, the supplied value is required by a component that is required by the component being resolved.
For context, I'm trying to inject HttpRequestMessage so that I can use it to resolve the request context (primarily to resolve an absolute URL).
Edit I'd also like to point out that I don't currently have a dependency on Web Host / System.Web and I'd rather not change that.
A proper approach is to
Create IMyDesiredRouteParameterProvider
Implement it. Get the current request inside it and get the url
Register it and inject it in the desired dependent class via constructor.
I made myself such an implementation and I can say that this way it works fine. You can make Web.Infrastructure assembly and put the implementation there. Or put both the interface and the implementation there if you are going to reference it from another web module.
using System;
using System.Web;
namespace RouteParameterProvider
{
interface IMyRouteParameterProvider
{
string GetRouteParameter();
}
public class ControllerActionMethodRouteParameterProvider : IMyRouteParameterProvider
{
public string GetRouteParameter()
{
string Parameter = HttpContext.Current.Request.RequestContext.RouteData.Values["controller"] as string;
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(Parameter))
{
throw new InvalidOperationException();
}
return Parameter;
}
}
}
You can get every possible thing that the Request Context contains from :
HttpContext.Current.Request.RequestContext
And it will be better if you rethink your design decision :
I need HttpRequestMessage to be regstered prior to creating each
instance of SomethingController so that it will be available down at
the LinkGenerator layer.
Containers are to be initialized at runtime and then used to resolve.
I need HttpRequestMessage to be regstered prior to creating each
instance of SomethingController so that it will be available down at
the LinkGenerator layer.
It sounds like you want to register an item with the container at runtime, post-startup. In general, this is not a good practice--registration should be a discrete event that happens when the app is fired up, and the container's state should not be changed during runtime.
Dependency Injection is about resolving service components, not runtime state--state is generally passed via methods (method injection). In this case it sounds like your LinkGenerator component needs access to the ambient state of the request.
I'm not that familiar with HttpRequestMessage, but this answer seems to show that it is possible to retreive it from HttpContext.Current. You could make this a method on your LinkGenerator class, or wrap this call in a separate component that gets injected into LinkGenerator (HttpRequestMessageProvider?). The latter would be my preferred method, as it allows LinkGenerator to be more testable.
Given the lack of a clean way of doing this and Web API not providing information as to the hosted endpoint beyond per-request context objects, I ended up injecting the base url from configuration.
Is this library by Mark Seemann the answer? In the description he writes explicitly :
This approach enables the use of Dependency Injection (DI) because the
request can be injected into the services which require it.
Then gives an example :
// Inside an ApiController
var uri = this.Url.GetLink(a=> a.GetById(1337));
By which you can then pass the URL down the road in the service that you have injected in the controller.
UPDATE :
Mark Seemann wrote about the same exact problem here:
"Because HttpRequestMessage provides the context you may need to
compose dependency graphs, the best extensibility point is the
extensibility point which provides an HttpRequestMessage every time a
graph should be composed. This extensibility point is the
IHttpControllerActivator interface:..."
This way you can pass request context information to a component deep in the object graph by getting from the HttpRequestMessage and passing it to the DI container.
Just take a look at the interface of IHttpControllerActivator.
The WEB API framework gets the IHttpControllerActivator through DependencyResolver. You probably already replaced it by your CastleWindsorDependencyResolver. Now you have to implement and register your HttpControllerActivator and register it.
When the WEB API framework gets IHttpControllerActivator from DependencyResolver (your Castle Windsor DR) and calls IHttpControllerActivator.Create() it will pass you the HttpRequestMessage. You can get your info from there and pass it to the your CastleDR before you call Resolve(typeof(MyController)) which will resolve the whole object graph - that means you will have MyHttpContextInfo to inject in your XYZComponent deep in the resolution stack.
This way tou are passing the arguments in the last possible moment but it is still possible. In Castle Windsor I make such passing of arguments though CreationContext.AdditionalArguments["myArgument"];.
I'm After several days learning angularJS through converting my standart JS app to a ng one.
I was wondering about this simple scenario:
I have a global function called fb_connect(),
it can be used from any page (or any controller if you like) to make a facebook-based login.
This function makes a simple http call and receives a JSON object contain data to move on (display a pop up, login, etc...)
I read that I can define a Factory or a Service for my app and use it in any controller, which works fine.
So, I created a fb_connect factory function.
The problem is that now, in every page (every controller), I have to define that fb_connect in the constructor of every controller - for example :
function welcome($scope,fb_connect){});
What is the proper way to do this kind of actions using Angular without having to define these functions each and every time in every controller?
Thanks
Setting up factories and services is all part of the dependency injection system of Angular. Using that system is great when you need to create things that depend on other injected things. It's a big tree of dependencies. It's also nice for creating singletons, such that everywhere in your code end up using the same instance of some object.
It sounds to me like neither of these benefits apply in your case. I'd suggest just not using Angular's DI for it. You have some function defined globally, just call it directly and skip the DI. There's nothing wrong with that.
Of course you say it makes an Ajax call, so doesn't depend on the Angular $http service?
Your two options are:
Declare the function on the $rootScope
Inject it as a service
My advice is to go with making it a service. The whole purpose of services is explained in the Angular.js docs, just like this quote:
Angular services are singletons that carry out specific tasks common to web apps... To use an Angular service, you identify it as a dependency for the dependent (a controller, or another service) that depends on the service.
As you mentioned in your question, you'd prefer to not define the service in every controller you wish to use it in. With $rootScope you'll be injecting that also in every controller. So really it's a question of which you prefer, although to answer your question, the proper way of using a factory or service is to inject it into the controller you wish to use it in.
You can always put it in the $rootScope
myApp.run(function($rootScope, fb_connect){
$rootScope.welcome = function(){
};
});
Update: I think is down to a Windsor configuration, does any one have any idea as to what I have not configured correctly with Windsor?
I am currently using Envers within a C# WebApi project. Windsor is used for IoC.
I have a custom RevisionEntity which add a User property to audit the user who has made the data change.
To ensure all configurations were correct I started off with a "simple string here" being added in the NewRevision method;
public class AuditRevisionListener : IRevisionListener
{
public void NewRevision(object revisionEntity)
{
((AuditRevision)revisionEntity).User = "Simple string here";
}
}
and all persisted as expected.
Next step is to achieve a full User object to which I need to obtain the UserService;
public class AuditRevisionListener : IRevisionListener
{
public void NewRevision(object revisionEntity)
{
var userServices = (IUserServices)GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver.GetService(typeof(IUserServices));
var user = userServices.GetRequestingUser();
((AuditRevision)revisionEntity).User = user;
}
}
However, the DependencyResolver.GetService is throwing the error;
"Cannot access a disposed object. Object name: 'Scope cache was already disposed. This is most likely a bug in the calling code.'. "
UPDATE
I have now created a demo project available at https://github.com/ScottFindlater/WindsorEnversIssue
On first setting up the solution all will run fine because the custom Envers RevisionListener is not performing any dependency resolving.
Run the solution which performs a GET to the HomeController, which simply loads one User and modifies another;
Dependency resolving is shown to be working as there is an ActionFilter called DependencyResolverDoesWork which successfully resolves the UserServices.
Envers is shown to be working as the UserAudit table is populated.
To “turn on” the dependency resolving in the customer RevisionListener navigate to; Domain NHibernate project, Auditing folder, AuditRevisionListener class, NewRevision method and uncomment the 2 lines of code.
Full rebuild and then run the solution again and the project will run time exception in the WindsorDependencyResolver class, GetService method with “Cannot access a disposed object”, and clicking the View Detail Action expands this message to “{"Cannot access a disposed object.\r\nObject name: 'Scope cache was already disposed. This is most likely a bug in the calling code.'."}”.
The comment posted by Roger, thank you so much, which suggests changing the LifeStyle to Singleton does work. However, this demo has been purposefully kept simple and the use of PerWebRequest LifeStyle is needed because the ApplicationServices in the real project has contextual related data injected such as requesting user which is used to enforce security.
I am so stuck now and any pointers/ answers as to what I have setup wrong will be gratefully received. In addition, I know this has been posted at SO and Envers forum, I WILL update an answer on both.
I think is down to a Windsor configuration, does any one have any idea as to what I have not configured correctly with Windsor?
I haven't tried to run your sample, but I think this is down to an interplay between the two http modules defined in your web.config (https://github.com/ScottFindlater/WindsorEnversIssue/blob/master/API%20Endpoints/Web.config)
Castle.MicroKernel.Lifestyle.PerWebRequestLifestyleModule - Controls the lifetime of "per web request" components
APIEndpoints.HttpModules.NHibernateSessionCoordinator - Opens a session and begins a transaction at the beginning of each web request, then commits the transaction and disposes the session at the end of the web request
It is at the point where you commit your transaction - at the end of the request, triggered by NHibernateSessionCoordinator, that any changes you've made to objects within your NHibernate ISession actually get written to the database. This is the point at which Envers does its stuff and, in turn, at which you attempt to resolve IUserService from your Windsor container. The exception is thrown because IUserService is registered with the "per web request" lifestyle and Windsor is treating the current web request as complete and has disposed any objects tied to the request.
Have you tried reversing the order in which the HttpModules are defined, e.g. NHibernateSessionCoordinator before PerWebRequestLifestyleModule? This will result in your NHibernate transaction being committed before per web request components are disposed.
I'm creating a flash campaign which will be loaded into a client's framework, which I have no control over. The framework will already have loaded a few things such as locale, fonts and copy, and will pass these things to my swf upon initialization.
Since the size of my swf (let's call it the shell) is restricted it will in turn display a campaign-specific preloader and then load another swf (let's call this the campaign) with the rest of the site.
The shell and the campaign will both be PureMVC modules. The shell will create a few proxies and populate these with data passed from the framework (locale constants, fonts etc), before loading in the campaign.
When the campaign is loaded it too will need locale and fonts etc. so my question is, what is the best way to pass this data along to the campaign module from the shell module?
I could create the same proxies in the campaign module and load the data again, which will be cached, but this obviously feels like the wrong way to go.
I've investigated the use of the pipes utility but this seems like a bit of an overkill in my case since the communication will be one-way and will just happen once during the initialization of the campaign.
Would it be "ok" from a design pattern point of view to pass the proxies to an init method of the campaign module and then register these proxies in the campaign module startup command? This seems wrong since these proxies have references to my shell application facade through notification names. Would it be ok if I move the notification names to some "NotificationConstants" class which both modules can use?
I could create similar proxies in the campaign module but this time populate them with the data objects from my old proxies passed to the previously mentioned init method? Spontaneously this feels like the best way to do it since the data objects don't have any references to my shell module but the "old" proxies do..
The solution I usually use is to create an interface:
interface Campaign {
function set campaignDetails(value:CampaignDetails):void;
//...
}
The campaign-module should implement this interface - in the implementation I recommend you to use a different proxy in the module, so that you would avoid having duplicated notifications and references.
When the shell is ready with the loading of the module it just has to:
if (module is Campaign)
{
(module as Campaign).campaignDetails = ...;
}
I'm sure I'm telling you nothing new. You just need to make sure to keep the acquaintance between the shell and the module only on an interface level. Then you just pass the data and leave the module MVC core to deal with it independently from the shell.