I'm using Castle Windsor as DI Container and have following question:
Is it possible to get informed by the container each time, any object was created by the container and get a reference to this object?
I want to check after each resolve, if the resolved object implements a special interface (e.g. IEmergencyStop). I want to register this object at a special service (EmergencyStopHelper).
Following an example:
interface IEmergencyStop
{
void Stop();
}
interface IMotor : IEmergencyStop
{
void Run();
}
class Motor : IMotor
{
}
class EmergencyStopHelper
{
List<IEmergencyStop> emergencyStopList = new List<IEmergencyStop>();
public void Register(IEmergencyStop aClass)
{
emergencyStopList.Add(aClass);
}
public void StopAll() => emergencyStopList.ForEach( x => x.Stop());
}
container.Register(Component.For<IMotor>().ImplementedBy<Motor>().LifestlyleTransient());
container.Register(Component.For<EmergencyStopHelper>());
// TODO: any magic code which calls EmergencyStopHelper.Register(...)
// after following resolve
IMotor aMotor = container.Resolve<IMotor>();
var emergencyStop = container.Resolve<EmergencyStopHelper>();
emergencyStop.StopAll();
Related
While trying to coerce Windsor into wrapping an implementation with a random number of decorators, i've stumbled upon the following:
i have 3 decorators and an implementation all using the same interface.
if you run this code, windsor resolves icommandhandler<stringcommand> as implementation, which, as far as i can tell, is expected behaviour, because the typed implementation can not be registered with the open typed decorators.
However, if you uncomment the line container.Register(Component.For<ICommandHandler<stringCommand>>().ImplementedBy<Decorator1<stringCommand>>());, all three decorators will be used to resolve implementation, which is the desired result (sort of : ).
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var container = new WindsorContainer();
container.Register(Component.For(typeof(ICommandHandler<>)).ImplementedBy(typeof(Decorator1<>)));
container.Register(Component.For(typeof(ICommandHandler<>)).ImplementedBy(typeof(Decorator2<>)));
container.Register(Component.For(typeof(ICommandHandler<>)).ImplementedBy(typeof(Decorator3<>)));
//uncomment the line below and watch the magic happen
//container.Register(Component.For<ICommandHandler<stringCommand>>().ImplementedBy<Decorator1<stringCommand>>());
container.Register(Component.For<ICommandHandler<stringCommand>>().ImplementedBy<implementation>());
var stringCommandHandler = container.Resolve<ICommandHandler<stringCommand>>();
var command = new stringCommand();
stringCommandHandler.Handle(command);
Console.WriteLine(command.s);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public interface ICommandHandler<T>
{
void Handle(T t);
}
public class stringCommand
{
public string s { get; set; }
}
public abstract class Decorator<T> : ICommandHandler<T>
{
public abstract void Handle(T t);
};
public class Decorator1<T> : Decorator<T>
where T : stringCommand
{
private ICommandHandler<T> _handler;
public Decorator1(ICommandHandler<T> handler)
{
_handler = handler;
}
public override void Handle(T t)
{
t.s += "Decorator1;";
_handler.Handle(t);
}
}
public class Decorator2<T> : Decorator<T>
where T : stringCommand
{
private ICommandHandler<T> _handler;
public Decorator2(ICommandHandler<T> handler)
{
_handler = handler;
}
public override void Handle(T t)
{
t.s += "Decorator2;";
_handler.Handle(t);
}
}
public class Decorator3<T> : Decorator<T>
where T : stringCommand
{
private ICommandHandler<T> _handler;
public Decorator3(ICommandHandler<T> handler)
{
_handler = handler;
}
public override void Handle(T t)
{
t.s += "Decorator3;";
_handler.Handle(t);
}
}
public class implementation : ICommandHandler<stringCommand>
{
public void Handle(stringCommand t)
{
t.s += "implementation;";
}
}
Why exactly is this happening, is this a feature of windsor that i am not aware of? Is there perhaps a different way to achieve the same effect? (without resorting to reflection)
When windsor tries to resolve a component it will first try to resolve the more specific interface. So when you register Component.For it will prefer to resolve this over an open generic type.
If the same interface is registered multiple times, it will use the first one specified.
So if you don't uncommment the line your application will resolve implementation since this is the most specific component.
If you do uncomment the line decorator1 will be resolved and indeed the magic starts. The decorator will now start looking for the first registered component that satisfies it's constructor, in this case that would be decorator1 again (you did notice that your output show decorator1 2 times ?). Which will the resolve the next registered component and so on till it comes to the actual implementation.
So the only thing I can think about is not registering decorator1 as an open generic but as a specific type.
Kind regards,
Marwijn.
Hi have the following component registered into Castle Windsor:
public class CommandDispatcher : IServiceCommandDispatcher
{
private readonly IWindsorContainer container;
public CommandDispatcher(IWindsorContainer container)
{
this.container = container;
}
#region IServiceCommandDispatcher Members
public void Dispatch<TCommand>(TCommand command) where TCommand : IServiceCommand
{
var handler = container.Resolve<IServiceCommandHandler<TCommand>>();
handler.Handle(command);
}
#endregion
}
And the dispatcher is registered in the following way:
Component
.For<IServiceCommandDispatcher>()
.ImplementedBy<CommandDispatcher>(),
But the field container is null when I resolve an instance of the dispatcher.
What should I do in order to pass the container to the resolved children items?
Windsor solves this problem for you with the Typed Factory Facility.
In the below example I want the implementation of ICommandHandlerFactory to resolve my command handler from my windsor container.
class CommandDispatcher : IServiceCommandDispatcher
{
private readonly ICommandHandlerFactory factory;
public CommandDispatcher(ICommandHandlerFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public void Dispatch<T>(T command) where T : IServiceCommand
{
var handler = this.factory.Create(command);
handler.Handle(command);
this.factory.Destroy(handler);
}
}
To achieve this I only need to create the ICommandHandlerFactory Interface.
public interface ICommandHandlerFactory
{
Handles<T> Create<T>(T command) where T : IServiceCommand;
void Destroy(object handler);
}
No implementation of ICommandHandlerFactory is required as Windsor will create the implementation. Windsor uses the convention that a method that returns an object is a resolve method and a method that returns void is a release method.
To register the factory you need to include using Castle.Facilities.TypedFactory and then register your factory as follows
container.AddFacility<TypedFactoryFacility>();
container.Register(
Component.For<ICommandHandlerFactory>()
.AsFactory()
);
Just to reiterate you do not have to write any implementation code for your factory.
This works:
container.Register(Component.For<IWindsorContainer>().Instance(container));
It's not ideal, because you still have to call the Resolve method. There may be a better way to do this, using a factory. This looks similar to what you're trying to do:
http://kozmic.net/2010/03/11/advanced-castle-windsor-ndash-generic-typed-factories-auto-release-and-more/
I have an MVVM Cross application running on Windows Phone 8 which I recently ported across to using Portable Class Libraries.
The view models are within the portable class library and one of them exposes a property which enables and disables a PerformanceProgressBar from the Silverlight for WP toolkit through data binding.
When the user presses a button a RelayCommand kicks off a background process which sets the property to true which should enable the progress bar and does the background processing.
Before I ported it to a PCL I was able to invoke the change from the UI thread to ensure the progress bar got enabled, but the Dispatcher object isn't available in a PCL. How can I work around this?
Thanks
Dan
All the MvvmCross platforms require that UI-actions get marshalled back on to the UI Thread/Apartment - but each platform does this differently....
To work around this, MvvmCross provides a cross-platform way to do this - using an IMvxViewDispatcherProvider injected object.
For example, on WindowsPhone IMvxViewDispatcherProvider is provided ultimately by MvxMainThreadDispatcher in https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/blob/vnext/Cirrious/Cirrious.MvvmCross.WindowsPhone/Views/MvxMainThreadDispatcher.cs
This implements the InvokeOnMainThread using:
private bool InvokeOrBeginInvoke(Action action)
{
if (_uiDispatcher.CheckAccess())
action();
else
_uiDispatcher.BeginInvoke(action);
return true;
}
For code in ViewModels:
your ViewModel inherits from MvxViewModel
the MvxViewModel inherits from an MvxApplicationObject
the MvxApplicationObject inherits from an MvxNotifyPropertyChanged
the MvxNotifyPropertyChanged object inherits from an MvxMainThreadDispatchingObject
MvxMainThreadDispatchingObject is https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/blob/vnext/Cirrious/Cirrious.MvvmCross/ViewModels/MvxMainThreadDispatchingObject.cs
public abstract class MvxMainThreadDispatchingObject
: IMvxServiceConsumer<IMvxViewDispatcherProvider>
{
protected IMvxViewDispatcher ViewDispatcher
{
get { return this.GetService().Dispatcher; }
}
protected void InvokeOnMainThread(Action action)
{
if (ViewDispatcher != null)
ViewDispatcher.RequestMainThreadAction(action);
}
}
So... your ViewModel can just call InvokeOnMainThread(() => DoStuff());
One further point to note is that MvvmCross automatically does UI thread conversions for property updates which are signalled in a MvxViewModel (or indeed in any MvxNotifyPropertyChanged object) through the RaisePropertyChanged() methods - see:
protected void RaisePropertyChanged(string whichProperty)
{
// check for subscription before going multithreaded
if (PropertyChanged == null)
return;
InvokeOnMainThread(
() =>
{
var handler = PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null)
handler(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(whichProperty));
});
}
in https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/blob/vnext/Cirrious/Cirrious.MvvmCross/ViewModels/MvxNotifyPropertyChanged.cs
This automatic marshalling of RaisePropertyChanged() calls works well for most situations, but can be a bit inefficient if you Raise a lot of changed properties from a background thread - it can lead to a lot of thread context switching. It's not something you need to be aware of in most of your code - but if you ever do find it is a problem, then it can help to change code like:
MyProperty1 = newValue1;
MyProperty2 = newValue2;
// ...
MyProperty10 = newValue10;
to:
InvokeOnMainThread(() => {
MyProperty1 = newValue1;
MyProperty2 = newValue2;
// ...
MyProperty10 = newValue10;
});
If you ever use ObservableCollection, then please note that MvvmCross does not do any thread marshalling for the INotifyPropertyChanged or INotifyCollectionChanged events fired by these classes - so it's up to you as a developer to marshall these changes.
The reason: ObservableCollection exists in the MS and Mono code bases - so there is no easy way that MvvmCross can change these existing implementations.
If you don't have access to the Dispatcher, you can just pass a delegate of the BeginInvoke method to your class:
public class YourViewModel
{
public YourViewModel(Action<Action> beginInvoke)
{
this.BeginInvoke = beginInvoke;
}
protected Action<Action> BeginInvoke { get; private set; }
private void SomeMethod()
{
this.BeginInvoke(() => DoSomething());
}
}
Then to instanciate it (from a class that has access to the dispatcher):
var dispatcherDelegate = action => Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(action);
var viewModel = new YourViewModel(dispatcherDelegate);
Or you can also create a wrapper around your dispatcher.
First, define a IDispatcher interface in your portable class library:
public interface IDispatcher
{
void BeginInvoke(Action action);
}
Then, in the project who has access to the dispatcher, implement the interface:
public class DispatcherWrapper : IDispatcher
{
public DispatcherWrapper(Dispatcher dispatcher)
{
this.Dispatcher = dispatcher;
}
protected Dispatcher Dispatcher { get; private set; }
public void BeginInvoke(Action action)
{
this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(action);
}
}
Then you can just pass this object as a IDispatcher instance to your portable class library.
Another option that could be easier is to store a reference to SynchronizationContext.Current in your class's constructor. Then, later on, you can use _context.Post(() => ...) to invoke on the context -- which is the UI thread in WPF/WinRT/SL.
class MyViewModel
{
private readonly SynchronizationContext _context;
public MyViewModel()
{
_context = SynchronizationContext.Current.
}
private void MyCallbackOnAnotherThread()
{
_context.Post(() => UpdateTheUi());
}
}
Does anyone know of a framework, preferably some way to have the Flex compiler run an extension or perhaps just a build step that we could generate strongly typed proxy classes of our application's data models.
There are 2 main things we want to do with the proxy's:
At runtime we want to lazily parse and instantiate the instance as accessed (similiar to how Java's Hibernate has Lazy proxy objects)
In an editor application we want to implement setter calls so we can track which objects have been modified
The Proxy is really necessary in this situation beyond things like programatically setting up ChangeWatcther's because we need to track Array adds/remove and possibly track "reference" objects so that when a "reference key" is changed we know to save those objects that are referencing it by key
In the first case we want the proxy to basically abstract when that object is loaded from serialized data, but still pass around references of it with the same public properties and data access pattern if it were the real object.
Basically the proxy would instantiate the object the first time a method is called on it.
I know we could use some AS3 byte-code libraries like as3-commons-bytecode.
Or possibly repurposing the GraniteDS Code Generation.
I'd prefer to generate code because it is a deterministic thing and it'd be nice if we could have a way to debug it at runtime easier.
Does anyone know if I could do something like MXMLC does when it generates AS3 code from MXML files.
Also is there anyway to control "when" in the compilation pipeline I can generate code, because we have a lot of data objects using public fields instead of getter/setters, but that are [Bindable] and so if I could generate the proxy based on the generated getter/setter methods that would work.
Here's an example application data object and proxy classes:
[Bindable]
public class PersonDTO implements Serializable {
private var _name:String;
private var _age:Number
public function get age():Number {
return _age;
}
public function set age(a:Number):void {
_age = a;
}
public function get name():String {
return _name;
}
public function set name(n:String):void {
_name = n;
}
public void readObject(data:*) {
//...
}
}
// GENERATED CLASS BASED ON PersonDTO
public class LazyProxy_PersonDTO extends PersonDTO {
private var _instance:PersonDTO = null;
private var _instanceData:*;
private function getInstance():void {
if (_instance == null) {
_instance = new PersonDTO();
_instance.readObject(_instanceData);
}
}
override public function get age():Number {
//Ensure object is instantiated
return getInstance().age;
}
override public function get name():String {
//Ensure object is instantiated
return getInstance().name;
}
}
// GENERATED CLASS BASED ON PersonDTO
public class LogChangeProxy_PersonDTO extends PersonDTO {
//This will be set in the application
public var instance:PersonDTO;
//set by application
public var dirtyWatcher:DirtyWatcherManager;
override public function set age(a:Number):void {
dirtyWatcher.markAsDirty(instance);
instance.age = a;
}
}
Digging a little deeper into AS3-Commons byte code library it looks like they support generating proxy classes and interceptors.
http://www.as3commons.org/as3-commons-bytecode/proxy.html
public class DirtyUpdateInterceptor implements IInterceptor {
public function DirtyUpdateInterceptor() {
super();
}
public function intercept(invocation:IMethodInvocation):void {
if (invocation.kind === MethodInvocationKind.SETTER) {
if (invocation.arguments[0] != invocation.instance[invocation.targetMember]) {
invocation.instance.isDirty = true;
}
}
}
}
We are using the NoTrackingReleasePolicy on the Windsor container due to the memory leaks that occur when we do not Release our components after usage. Now consider the following problem.
Some disposable component:
public class DisposableComponent : IDisposable
{
private bool _disposed;
public bool Disposed
{
get { return _disposed; }
}
public void Dispose()
{
_disposed = true;
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
}
Some class using the disposable component:
public class ClassWithReferenceToDisposableService
{
private DisposableComponent _disposableComponent;
public ClassWithReferenceToDisposableService(DisposableComponent disposableComponent)
{
_disposableComponent = disposableComponent;
}
}
And finaly a test which configures these components as transient and resolve/release them:
[Test]
public void ReleaseComponent_ServiceWithReferenceToTransientDisposable_TransientComponentDisposed()
{
// arrange
var windsorContainer = new WindsorContainer();
windsorContainer.Kernel.ReleasePolicy = new NoTrackingReleasePolicy();
windsorContainer.Register(Component.For<ClassWithReferenceToDisposableService>().LifeStyle.Transient);
windsorContainer.Register(Component.For<DisposableComponent>().LifeStyle.Transient);
ClassWithReferenceToDisposableService service =
windsorContainer.Resolve<ClassWithReferenceToDisposableService>();
// act
windsorContainer.Release(service);
}
Now, if I remove the NoTrackingReleasePolicy, Windsor will dispose the transient service as expected, but I can not do this (period). Now, what I want to achieve is that Windsor disposes the transient components (anywhere in the resolve graph) when I invoke ReleaseCompnent. Is there any way to achieve this without changing the NoTrackingReleasePolicy?
No, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can implement your own custom policy that is kind of like NoTrackingReleasePolicy but will track some components...