I know we can implement IWantCustomInitialization to configure NServicebus with other IoC continers lets say Castle.Windsor for instance, but I found this is obsoleted. in new version alternatively I used INeedInitialization, but it also didn't solve my issue because the container was specified before "INeedInitialization.Customize" invocation, So
at last I implemented IConfigureThisEndpoint as my final solution.
To sum up my question; when to use "INeedInitialization" and "IConfigureThisEndpoint"?
Best Regards
Both give you access to do basically the same things. The big difference is that IConfigureThisEndpoint is once per endpoint, so you use that to configure truly endpoint-specific things. INeedInitialization can have many implementations, and all of them get executed. So you can package up multiple INeedInitialization behaviors in a Conventions assembly and use them throughout your solution to carry out tasks common to multiple (or all) endpoints.
This has been changed a bit over time and v5 of NServiceBus introduce a different API. For context you can read through the following bug comments. What the intent is:
IConfigureThisEndpoint - for configuring the Endpoint. Can only have 1 per instance.
INeedInitialization - for configuring a component used by the Endpoint. Can have multiple implementations of this per instance.
An example of when to use IConfigureThisEndpoint (see full example)
public class EndpointConfig : IConfigureThisEndpoint, AsA_Server, UsingTransport<MsmqTransport>
{
public void Customize(BusConfiguration configuration)
{
configuration.UsePersistence<NHibernatePersistence>();
}
}
An example of when to use INeedInitialization (see full example)
class ResponderInstaller : INeedInitialization
{
public void Init()
{
Configure.Instance.Configurer.ConfigureComponent<CustomHttpResponder>(DependencyLifecycle.InstancePerCall);
}
}
Related
After going back to an older project and getting around to update its dependencies I had to realize that logback does not anymore propagate MDCs to children since version 1.1.5: https://github.com/qos-ch/logback/commit/aa7d584ecdb1638bfc4c7223f4a5ff92d5ee6273
This change makes most of the logs nigh useless.
While I can understand the arguments given in the linked issues, I can not understand why this change could not have been made in a more backwards compatible manner (as is generally usual in java..).
Q: What is the now correct way to achieve the same behaviour other than having to subclass everything from Runnables to Threads?
I see no straightforward way to change this back. Two alternatives that come to mind are:
Way #1: Wrap all Runnables
Introduce an abstract class that will copy MDC from the original Thread to a new Thread and use it instead of Runnable
public abstract class MdcAwareRunnable implements Runnable
{
private Map<String, String> originalMdc;
public MdcAwareRunnable()
{
this.originalMdc = MDC.getCopyOfContextMap();
}
#Override
public void run()
{
MDC.setContextMap(originalMdc);
runImpl();
}
protected abstract void runImpl();
/**
* In case some Runnable comes from external API and we can't change that code we can wrap it anyway.
*/
public static MdcAwareRunnable wrap(Runnable runnable)
{
return new MdcAwareRunnable()
{
#Override
protected void runImpl()
{
runnable.run();
}
};
}
}
If some Runnable comes from an external API that you can't change that code, use wrap helper method.
Drawback: need to analyze and change whole code.
Way #2: Mess with slf4j internals
Resurrect the original LogbackMDCAdapter implementation that uses InheritableThreadLocal from before that commit and put it somewhere in your code under some other name. Then somewhere around startup use reflection to override MDC.mdcAdapter property with and instance of that custom implementation. This is obviously a dirty hack but it saves a lot of troubles comparing to #1.
Note: for performance reasons it makes to inherit your resurrected version from existing LogbackMDCAdapter and just override all the methods with old implementation. See LoggingEvent.java and LogbackMDCAdapter.getPropertyMap internal method for some details.
Way #3: Mess with logback jar (even stranger alternative)
This sounds to me as a quite bad plan but for completness here it is.
Again resurrect the original LogbackMDCAdapter but this time don't rename, compile it and override that .class file inside logback.jar.
Or resurrect the original LogbackMDCAdapter with renaming, remove .class file for org.slf4j.impl.StaticMDCBinder from logback.jar and add your own class that will return resurrected version of LogbackMDCAdapter either to logback.jar or to your code. MDC seems to be bound to that class by name to create an implementation of MDCAdapter to use.
Or you can achieve similar result by using custom ClassLoader that would map org.slf4j.impl.StaticMDCBinder to your class instead of the one inside logback.jar. Note: this is probably impossible to achieve inside a Web-container that will add its own custom ClassLoaders.
Way 4: Misuse TurboFilter
ch.qos.logback.classic.Logger passes the logging event to a filter before passing it along to the appenders.
Way 5: Modify log Encoder / provider
Although this would mean the logging event is not updated, but the log output will be.
I have a web application that uses linq-to-sql queries (will soon be upgraded to linq-to-EF compiled queries) and for which there's data context and a database already in place. I want to create a demo version of the application and for the demo, I want to use an entirely different database file but that will have the same tables. So in essence, I'll have the same data structure for two different databases: one database for logged-in users and one database for demo users. I want to reuse many of the queries I've already written; they look like this:
public class FruitQueries
{
public List<SomeObjectModel> MyQuery(list of parameters)
{
using (MyDataContext TheDC = new MyDataContext())
{
var TheQueryResult = (from f in TheDC.Fruits
......).ToList();
return TheQueryResult;
}
}
public List<SomeObject> AnotherQuery(some other parameters) {...}
}
Now I think I know that this calls for dependency injection where the data context is passed in as a parameter but I'm not sure on the syntax. How do you reuse queries using dependency injection to make them work on two different databases? Right now I'm using a using statement and I want to keep this pattern; is that possible if I inject the DC as a parameter?
Thanks.
Since you already have a lot of code in place, probably the simplest thing to do is to inject a factory:
public interface IMyDataContextFactory
{
MyDataContext CreateNewContext();
}
All the code will roughly stay the same:
public List<SomeObjectModel> MyQuery(params)
{
using (var TheDC = this.factory.CreateNewContext())
{
var TheQueryResult = (from f in TheDC.Fruits
......).ToList();
return TheQueryResult;
}
}
You can let the injected IMyDataContextFactory decide how to construct a MyDataContext instance (based on the user). This would be trivial.
In the end it will probably be better to inject a MyDataContext (or an abstraction such as IUnitOfWork) into consumers, but this changes everything completely. Since this class is passed in from the outside, the consumer isn't responsible anymore for disposing it, but someone else is. Although disposing such instance isn't that hard with most DI container. It gets harder though when you want to share the same MyDataContext instance over multiple consumers (within the same web request for instance) and where do you call SubmitChanges?
Elaborating the previous answer
What you can do, is provide the connectionstring to the DC (would this qualify as contructor injection?)
using (MyDataContext TheDC = new MyDataContext(this.factory.CreateConString()))
This way, disposal is still handled by the consumer and you can continue your Using() approach. Your factory can read the two different connectionstrings from your webconfig and determine the right one to use, based on the user. (not that trivial as it may seem)
PS: I think the quickest way is to deploy the demo application to a different URL so they can have a separate web.config and you do not need to code anything but that does not answer your question.
I have build my site using entity and repository pattern with ninject injection. My problem is my connections don't seem to get disposed. I have around 30 repositories (one for each table) and I get sql expiration timout preety quick. I can't use the regular using statement because the code recognize only the interface before the injection.
(in each controler I have my repositories interface instances which get injected via ninject).
I have searched the net but couldn't find a solution that was accurate for me.
can anyone please help me?
code example:
this is in the ninject controller under addBindings():
ninjectKernel.Bind<IMovieRepository>().To<MovieRepository>().InRequestScope();
and one of my repositories:
public class MovieRepository : IMovieRepository, IDisposable
{
private Entities dataContext = new Entities();
public System.Data.Entity.DbContext DbContext
{
get { return dataContext ?? (dataContext = new Entities()); }
}
public void Dispose() { dataContext.Dispose(); }
}
and in the Global.asax file:
ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new NinjectControllerFactory() as IControllerFactory);
I would guess that your repositories (and therefore presumably your DbContexts) are being bound in transient scope, which I believe means a new one will be created every time Ninject needs to inject one somewhere. I'm not certain but I'm guessing then that these are all staying around for the lifetime of your application and maybe not being disposed.
Try binding your repositories in request scope, so that they are created and disposed per web request.
e.g.
Bind<IFooRepository>().To<ConcreteFooRepository>().InRequestScope();
From the Ninject wiki:
There are four built-in scopes available in Ninject:
Transient - A new instance of the type will be created each time one is requested. (This is the default scope). Binding method is .InTransientScope()
Singleton - Only a single instance of the type will be created, and the same instance will be returned for each subsequent request. Binding method is .InSingletonScope()
Thread - One instance of the type will be created per thread. Binding method is .InThreadScope()
Request - One instance of the type will be created per web request, and will be destroyed when the request ends. Binding method is .InRequestScope()
This kind of problem usually occur if long living objects depend on shorter living objects. E.g. A singleton service uses a repository in request scope.
As we all know, when we derive a class and use polymorphism, someone, somewhere needs to know what class to instanciate. We can use factories, a big switch statement, if-else-if, etc. I just learnt from Bill K this is called Dependency Injection.
My Question: Is it good practice to use reflection and attributes as the dependency injection mechanism? That way, the list gets populated dynamically as we add new types.
Here is an example. Please no comment about how loading images can be done other ways, we know.
Suppose we have the following IImageFileFormat interface:
public interface IImageFileFormat
{
string[] SupportedFormats { get; };
Image Load(string fileName);
void Save(Image image, string fileName);
}
Different classes will implement this interface:
[FileFormat]
public class BmpFileFormat : IImageFileFormat { ... }
[FileFormat]
public class JpegFileFormat : IImageFileFormat { ... }
When a file needs to be loaded or saved, a manager needs to iterate through all known loader and call the Load()/Save() from the appropriate instance depending on their SupportedExtensions.
class ImageLoader
{
public Image Load(string fileName)
{
return FindFormat(fileName).Load(fileName);
}
public void Save(Image image, string fileName)
{
FindFormat(fileName).Save(image, fileName);
}
IImageFileFormat FindFormat(string fileName)
{
string extension = Path.GetExtension(fileName);
return formats.First(f => f.SupportedExtensions.Contains(extension));
}
private List<IImageFileFormat> formats;
}
I guess the important point here is whether the list of available loader (formats) should be populated by hand or using reflection.
By hand:
public ImageLoader()
{
formats = new List<IImageFileFormat>();
formats.Add(new BmpFileFormat());
formats.Add(new JpegFileFormat());
}
By reflection:
public ImageLoader()
{
formats = new List<IImageFileFormat>();
foreach(Type type in Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes())
{
if(type.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(FileFormatAttribute), false).Length > 0)
{
formats.Add(Activator.CreateInstance(type))
}
}
}
I sometimes use the later and it never occured to me that it could be a very bad idea. Yes, adding new classes is easy, but the mechanic registering those same classes is harder to grasp and therefore maintain than a simple coded-by-hand list.
Please discuss.
My personal preference is neither - when there is a mapping of classes to some arbitrary string, a configuration file is the place to do it IMHO. This way, you never need to modify the code - especially if you use a dynamic loading mechanism to add new dynamic libraries.
In general, I always prefer some method that allows me to write code once as much as possible - both your methods require altering already-written/built/deployed code (since your reflection route makes no provision for adding file format loaders in new DLLs).
Edit by Coincoin:
Reflection approach could be effectively combined with configuration files to locate the implmentations to be injected.
The type could be declared explicitely in the config file using canonical names, similar to MSBuild <UsingTask>
The config could locate the assemblies, but then we have to inject all matching types, ala Microsoft Visual Studio Packages.
Any other mechanism to match a value or set of condition to the needed type.
My vote is that the reflection method is nicer. With that method, adding a new file format only modifies one part of the code - the place where you define the class to handle the file format. Without reflection, you'll have to remember to modify the other class, the ImageLoader, as well
Isn't this pretty much what the Dependency Injection pattern is all about?
If you can isolate the dependencies then the mechanics will almost certainly be reflection based, but it will be configuration file driven so the messiness of the reflection can be pretty well encapsulated and isolated.
I believe with DI you simply say I need an object of type <interface> with some other parameters, and the DI system returns an object to you that satisfies your conditions.
This goes together with IoC (Inversion of Control) where the object being supplied may need something else, so that other thing is automatically created and installed into your object (being created by DI) before it's returned to the user.
I know this borders on the "no comment about loading images other ways", but why not just flip your dependencies -- rather than have ImageLoader depend on ImageFileFormats, have each IImageFileFormat depend on an ImageLoader? You'll gain a few things out of this:
Each time you add a new IImageFileFormat, you won't need to make any changes anywhere else (and you won't have to use reflection, either)
If you take it one step further and abstract ImageLoader, you can mock it in Unit Tests, making testing the concrete implementations of each IImageFileFormat that much easier
In vb.net, if all the image loaders will be in the same assembly, one could use partial classes and events to achieve the desired effect (have a class whose purpose is to fire an event when the image loaders should register themselves; each file containing image loaders can have use a "partial class" to add another event handler to that class); C# doesn't have a direct equivalent to vb.net's WithEvents syntax, but I suspect partial classes are a limited mechanism for achieving the same thing.
Method chaining is the only way I know to build fluent interfaces.
Here's an example in C#:
John john = new JohnBuilder()
.AddSmartCode("c#")
.WithfluentInterface("Please")
.ButHow("Dunno");
Assert.IsNotNull(john);
[Test]
public void Should_Assign_Due_Date_With_7DayTermsVia_Invoice_Builder()
{
DateTime now = DateTime.Now;
IInvoice invoice = new InvoiceBuilder()
.IssuedOn(now)
.WithInvoiceNumber(40)
.WithPaymentTerms(PaymentTerms.SevenDays)
.Generate();
Assert.IsTrue(invoice.DateDue == now.AddDays(7));
}
So how do others create fluent interfaces. How do you create it? What language/platform/technology is needed?
The core idea behind building a fluent interface is one of readability - someone reading the code should be able to understand what is being achieved without having to dig into the implementation to clarify details.
In modern OO languages such as C#, VB.NET and Java, method chaining is one way that this is achieved, but it's not the only technique - two others are factory classes and named parameters.
Note also that these techniques are not mutually exclusive - the goal is to maximize readabilty of the code, not purity of approach.
Method Chaining
The key insight behind method chaining is to never have a method that returns void, but to always return some object, or more often, some interface, that allows for further calls to be made.
You don't need to necessarily return the same object on which the method was called - that is, you don't always need to "return this;".
One useful design technique is to create an inner class - I always suffix these with "Expression" - that exposes the fluent API, allowing for configuration of another class.
This has two advantages - it keeps the fluent API in one place, isolated from the main functionality of the class, and (because it's an inner class) it can tinker with the innards of the main class in ways that other classes cannot.
You may want to use a series of interfaces, to control which methods are available to the developer at a given point in time.
Factory Classes
Sometimes you want to build up a series of related objects - examples include the NHibernate Criteria API, Rhino.Mocks expectation constraints and NUnit 2.4's new syntax.
In both of these cases, you have the actual objects you are storing, but to make them easier to create there are factory classes providing static methods to manufacture the instances you require.
For example, in NUnit 2.4 you can write:
Assert.That( result, Is.EqualTo(4));
The "Is" class is a static class full of factory methods that create constraints for evaluation by NUnit.
In fact, to allow for rounding errors and other imprecision of floating point numbers, you can specify a precision for the test:
Assert.That( result, Is.EqualTo(4.0).Within(0.01));
(Advance apologies - my syntax may be off.)
Named Parameters
In languages that support them (including Smalltalk, and C# 4.0) named parameters provide a way to include additional "syntax" in a method call, improving readability.
Consider a hypothetical Save() method that takes a file name, and permissions to apply to the file after saving:
myDocument.Save("sampleFile.txt", FilePermissions.ReadOnly);
with named parameters, this method could look like this:
myDocument.Save(file:"SampleFile.txt", permissions:FilePermissions.ReadOnly);
or, more fluently:
myDocument.Save(toFile:"SampleFile.txt", withPermissions:FilePermissions.ReadOnly);
You can create a fluent interface in any version of .NET or any other language that is Object Oriented. All you need to do is create an object whose methods always return the object itself.
For example in C#:
public class JohnBuilder
{
public JohnBuilder AddSmartCode(string s)
{
// do something
return this;
}
public JohnBuilder WithfluentInterface(string s)
{
// do something
return this;
}
public JohnBuilder ButHow(string s)
{
// do something
return this;
}
}
Usage:
John = new JohnBuilder()
.AddSmartCode("c#")
.WithfluentInterface("Please")
.ButHow("Dunno");
AFAIK, the term fluent interface does not specify a specific technology or framework, but rather a design pattern. Wikipedia does have an extensive example of fluent interfaces in C♯.
In a simple setter method, you do not return void but this. That way, you can chain all of the statements on that object which behave like that. Here is a quick example based on your original question:
public class JohnBuilder
{
private IList<string> languages = new List<string>();
private IList<string> fluentInterfaces = new List<string>();
private string butHow = string.Empty;
public JohnBuilder AddSmartCode(string language)
{
this.languages.Add(language);
return this;
}
public JohnBuilder WithFluentInterface(string fluentInterface)
{
this.fluentInterfaces.Add(fluentInterface);
return this;
}
public JohnBuilder ButHow(string butHow)
{
this.butHow = butHow;
return this;
}
}
public static class MyProgram
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
JohnBuilder johnBuilder = new JohnBuilder().AddSmartCode("c#").WithFluentInterface("Please").ButHow("Dunno");
}
}
Sometime ago I had the same doubts you are having now. I've done some research and now I'm writing a series of blog posts about techinics of designing a fluent interface.
Check it out at:
Guidelines to Fluent Interface design in C# part 1
I have a section there about Chaining X Nesting that can be interesting to you.
In the following posts I will talk about it in a deeper way.
Best regards,
André Vianna
Fluent interface is achieved in object oriented programming by always returning from your methods the same interface that contains the method. Consequently you can achieve this effect in java, javascript and your other favorite object oriented languages, regardless of version.
I have found this technique easiest to accomplish through the use of interfaces:
public interface IFoo
{
IFoo SetBar(string s);
IFoo DoStuff();
IFoo SetColor(Color c);
}
In this way, any concrete class that implements the interface, gets the fluent method chaining capabilities. FWIW.. I wrote the above code in C# 1.1
You will find this technique littered throughout the jQuery API
A couple of things come to mind that are possible in .Net 3.5/C# 3.0:
If an object doesn't implement a fluent interface, you could use Extension Methods to chain your calls.
You might be able to use the object initialization to simulate fluent, but this only works at instantiation time and would only work for single argument methods (where the property is only a setter). This seems hackish to me, but the there it is.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using function chaining if you are implementing a builder object. If the builder object has chaining methods, it keeps the object you are creating clean. Just a thought.
This is how I've built my so called fluent interfaces or my only forary into it
Tokenizer<Bid> tkn = new Tokenizer<Bid>();
tkn.Add(Token.LambdaToken<Bid>("<YourFullName>", b => Util.CurrentUser.FullName))
.Add(Token.LambdaToken<Bid>("<WalkthroughDate>",
b => b.WalkThroughDate.ToShortDateString()))
.Add(Token.LambdaToken<Bid>("<ContactFullName>", b => b.Contact.FullName))
.Cache("Bid")
.SetPattern(#"<\w+>");
My example required .net 3.5 but that's only cause of my lambda's. As Brad pointed out you can do this in any version of .net. Although I think lambda's make for more interesting possibilities such as this.
======
Some other good examples are nHibernate's Criteria API, there is also a fluent nhibernate extension for configuring nhibernate but I've never used it
Dynamic keyword in C# 4.0 will make it possible to write dynamic style builders. Take a look at following article about JSON object construction.