I don't see how Windows Azure lets you vary the configuration of an application when you have no choice but to hold configuration settings in web.config (or app.config).
For example...
Quite often projects will make use of a 3rd party library that makes heavy use of web.config. The use of web.config may involve connection strings, app settings or custom configuration sections. A good example of this is ELMAH. A web.config file for ELMAH might look like the following:
<configuration>
<configSections>
<sectionGroup name="elmah">
<section name="security" requirePermission="false" type="Elmah.SecuritySectionHandler, Elmah" />
<section name="errorLog" requirePermission="false" type="Elmah.ErrorLogSectionHandler, Elmah" />
</sectionGroup>
</configSections>
<connectionStrings>
<add
name="MyElmahDatabase"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient"
connectionString="Server=tcp:myServer.database.windows.net,1433;Database=myDB;User ID=user#myServer;Password=password;Trusted_Connection=False;Encrypt=True;Connection Timeout=30" />
</connectionStrings>
<elmah>
<security allowRemoteAccess="1" />
<errorLog type="Elmah.SqlErrorLog, Elmah" connectionStringName="MyElmahDatabase" />
</elmah>
</configuration>
There are a couple of problems here:
There is no way for me to update or vary whether remote access is enabled between Service Configurations.
There is no way for me to update or vary the ELMAH connection string between Service Configurations.
This is because the web.config is packaged as is into the .cspkg file and ELMAH will not look at the Service Configuration settings (which are the only way I can vary configuration settings between Service Configurations).
I can think of many other examples where this is a problem...
Any data access frameworks that look directly at the connection strings section.
Any custom configuration settings I need to create.
...to name just two.
Am I missing something or is this a significant gap in the configuration management offered by Windows Azure?
EDIT
From the answer and comments below, it looks like this is something that is not well supported. I think that managing multiple solution build configurations to support different configuration profiles is a very weak solution. I should not have to rebuild the solution for each configuration profile I need (there will likely be quite a few). Compilation is not equal to configuration.
I was wondering if there was a way to modify the .cspkg file as it is just a zip file. According to this documentation you can on Linux.
I've looked at the manifest in the .cspkg file and it looks like this:
<PackageManifest version="2">
<Encryption keytype="1" />
<Contents hashtype="1">
<Item name="MyApp.Web.UI_<GUID>.cssx" hash="AED69299C5F89E060876BC16BD3D6DE5130F6E62FFD2B752BAF293435339B7E2" uri="/MyApp.Web.UI_<GUID>.cssx" />
<Item name="MyApp.Web.Services_<GUID>.cssx" hash="7AC81AFF642E4345173C8470C32A41118A4E3CFD4185B82D0ADA44B71057192D" uri="/MyApp.Web.Services_<GUID>.cssx" />
<Item name="SMPackage_<GUID>.csmx" hash="B5E6B83B62AF64C7C11CAC1A394ABBF15D7DB7667A773C5284CE5BE95C5834E9" uri="/SMPackage_<GUID>.csmx" />
<Item name="SDPackage_<GUID>.csdx" hash="F34B7C02A551D82BAD96881E2DA9447D0014D49B47CCB3840475BDC575234A7D" uri="/SDPackage_<GUID>.csdx" />
<Item name="NamedStreamPackage_<GUID>.csnsx" hash="FA2B5829FF5D9B2D69DCDDB0E5BDEE6B8B0BC09FFBF37DAEEE41CF3F3F4D0132" uri="/NamedStreamPackage_<GUID>.csnsx" />
</Contents>
<NamedStreams>
<Stream name="RequiredFeatures/MyApp.Web.Services/1.0" />
<Stream name="RequiredFeatures/MyApp.Web.UI/1.0" />
<Stream name="SupportData/MyApp.Web.Services/1.0" />
<Stream name="SupportData/MyApp.Web.UI/1.0" />
</NamedStreams>
</PackageManifest>
Unfortunately, if I re-compute the hash of the unchanged "MyApp.Web.UI_.cssx" file, my hash is different from the one in the manifest.
Hash from manifest: AED69299C5F89E060876BC16BD3D6DE5130F6E62FFD2B752BAF293435339B7E2
My calculated hash: E3B0C44298FC1C149AFBF4C8996FB92427AE41E4649B934CA495991B7852B855
Note that I have not yet changed the file, so the hash should be the same.
This suggests I'm calculating it wrong. My method was as follows:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (FileStream fs = new FileStream(args[0], FileMode.Open))
{
ComputeHash(new SHA256Managed(), fs);
}
}
private static void ComputeHash(HashAlgorithm hashAlgorithm, Stream stream)
{
byte[] hash = hashAlgorithm.ComputeHash(stream);
string hashString = BitConverter.ToString(hash);
Console.WriteLine(hashString.Replace("-", string.Empty));
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
The documentation link above, suggests it is straightforward to re-calculate the hash (on Linux anyway).
Does anyone know how to re-compute the hashes?
Passing a Stream to ComputeHash() ends up with a different hash as compared to using the byte[] overload. I don't know why.
Try something like:
private static void ComputeHash(HashAlgorithm hashAlgorithm, Stream stream)
{
BinaryReader reader = new BinaryReader(stream)
byte[] hash = hashAlgorithm.ComputeHash( reader.ReadBytes( (int)stream.Length ) );
string hashString = BitConverter.ToString(hash);
Console.WriteLine(hashString.Replace("-", string.Empty));
Console.WriteLine();
}
This will give you the hash you're after.
As you've probably already discovered, on linux you can get the digest with
openssl dgst -sha256 /path/to/file
I you have items in your web.config that you want to change depending on how it's being built, there is a solution that is outside of Azure that you can use. You can use Web.config transforms. These transforms are tied to your build configuration not your service configuration, but your service configurations a likely closely tied to your build configurations anyway (...Local.csfg -> Debug, ...Cloud.csfg -> Release). If the default build configurations don't work for you, just create the ones you need.
If you want to use different service definitions per service configuration, then it's not supported by the UI, but you can mess around with the build process to make it work
Related
My Spring.NET configuration is using the following type syntax and is working ok.
<object id="JohnUsingVariableSource"
type="XmlConfig.StringInjection.Person, XmlConfig">
<property name="Name" value="${JohnsFullName}" />
</object>
Values for the ${JohnsFullName} placeholder are configured in the app.config file. My requirements have changed and I know need to get the name from the database at startup. How is it possible to overwrite the value in the app.config file ? Can I do it in code without opening the app.config (as here App.Config change value), does spring.NET have a way of doing this ?
Yes, you can do that without modifying the app.config file. Simply implement a custom IVariableSource:
public interface IVariableSource
{
string ResolveVariable(string name);
}
In the ResolveVariable method you read from the db.
The first variable source configured in your config will be the one used by the spring config, if I recall correctly.
I'm using enterprise library for logging. So, to hold my configurations, I'm using the client's app.config. The requirement changed to "split EL configuration and UI configuration". I did it using enterpriseLibrary.ConfigurationSource. Split the configurations to app.config(For UI) and EL.config(For EL).
Now I want to hide the reference to this EL.config from app.cpnfig, so that the mere existence of this EL>config is hidden from the User.
App.config Code:
<enterpriseLibrary.ConfigurationSource selectedSource="EntLib Configuration Source">
<sources>
<add name="EntLib Configuration Source" type="Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Common.Configuration.FileConfigurationSource, Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Common, Version=4.1.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35"
filePath="C:\My.CommonServices.Logging\My.CommonServices.Logging\EL.config" />
</sources>
You can use FileConfigurationSource to programmatically load an external configuration file.
During application load or initialization you can load your external configuration file:
FileConfigurationSource fcs =
new FileConfigurationSource(
#"C:\My.CommonServices.Logging\My.CommonServices.Logging\EL.config"
);
var builder = new ConfigurationSourceBuilder();
builder.UpdateConfigurationWithReplace(fcs);
EnterpriseLibraryContainer.Current =
EnterpriseLibraryContainer.CreateDefaultContainer(fcs);
Once that is done you can access your favorite features:
LogWriter logWriter = EnterpriseLibraryContainer.Current.GetInstance<LogWriter>();
logWriter.Write("Test");
The only "trick" is ensuring that the configuration file is always present where you expect (either absolute or relative).
I have the following three components defined in the Caste-Windsor XML configuration for my application:
<component id="StringFactory"
service="IStringFactory, MyApp"
type="DefaultStringFactory, MyApp"
lifestyle="singleton"
/>
<component id="TheString"
type="System.String"
factoryId="StringFactory"
factoryCreate="CreateString"
>
<parameters>
<name>SomeString</name>
</parameters>
</component>
<component id="TheTarget"
service="ITarget, MyApp"
type="TheTarget, MyApp"
lifestyle="transient"
>
<parameters>
<aString>${TheString}</aString>
</parameters>
</component>
And the following facility defined:
<facility id="factory.support"
type="Castle.Facilities.FactorySupport.FactorySupportFacility, Castle.MicroKernel"
/>
When I run the application and set a breakpoint in the constructor of the TheObject class, the value passed in as the aString parameter is "${TheString}" when I expect it to resolve to the value of the component with that name.
Also, I have a breakpoint in the StringFactory constructor and CreateString method, neither of which are hit. I know the configuration is being used as other components are resolving correctly.
What am I missing or doing wrong here?
UPDATE
In light of the huge tangient this topic has taken, I've refactored the code above to remove anything to do with connection strings. The original intent of this post was about injecting a property with the value returned from a method on another object. Somehow that point was lost in a discussion about why I'm using XML versus code-based configuration and if this is a good way to inject a connection string.
The above approach is far from an original idea and it was pulled from several other discussions on this topic and our requirements are what they are. I'd like help understanding why the configuration as it is in place (whether the right approach or not) isn't working as expected.
I did verify that the first two components are being instantiated correctly. When I call Container.Resolve("TheString"), I get the correct value back. For whatever reason, The parameter syntax is not working correctly.
Any ideas?
While not a definitive solution to what I need to do in my application, I believe I've figured out what is wrong with the code. Or at least I've found a way to make it work which hints at the original problem.
I replaced the String type for TheString with a custom class. That's it. Once I did that, everything worked fine.
My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that I was trying to use a ValueType (primitive) as a component. I guess Castle doesn't support it.
So, knowing that's the case, I can now move on to figuring out if this approach is really going to work or if we need to change direction.
UPDATE
For the sake of completeness, I thought I'd go ahead and explain what I did to solve my problem AND satisfy my requirements.
As before, I have access to my configuration settings through an IConfigurationService defined as:
<component id="ConfigurationService"
service="MyApp.IConfigurationService, MyApp"
type="MyApp.RuntimeConfigurationService, MyApp"
lifestyle="singleton"
/>
This is automatically injected into my (new) IConnectionFactory which is responsible for generating IDbConnection objects based on the connection strings defined in the application's configuration file. The factory is declared as:
<component id="ConnectionFactory"
service="MyApp.Factories.IConnectionFactory, MyApp"
type="MyApp.Factories.DefaultConnectionFactory, MyApp"
lifestyle="singleton"
/>
In order to resolve what connection is used by my repository, I declare each connection as a component using the ConnectionFactory to create each instance:
<component id="MyDbConnection"
type="System.Data.IDbConnection,
System.Data, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral,
PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089"
factoryId="ConnectionFactory"
factoryCreate="CreateConnection"
lifestyle="transient"
>
<parameters>
<connectionStringName>MyDB</connectionStringName>
</parameters>
</component>
Notice the fully described reference to System.Data. I found this is necessary whenever referencing assemblies in the GAC.
Finally, my repository is defined as:
<component id="MyRepository"
service="MyApp.Repositories.IMyRepository, MyApp"
type="MyApp.Sql.SqlMyRepository, MyApp.Sql"
lifestyle="transient"
>
<parameters>
<connection>${MyDbConnection}</connection>
</parameters>
</component>
Now everything resolves correctly and I don't have ANY hard-coded strings compiled into my code. No connection string names, app setting keys or whatever. The app is completely reconfigurable from the XML files which is a requirement I must satisfy. Plus, other devs that will be working with the solution can manage the actual connection strings in the way they are used to. Win-win.
Hope this helps anyone else that runs into a similar scenario.
You don't really need XML registrations here, since you probably don't need to swap components or change the method used without recompiling. Writing a configurable app does not imply having to use XML registrations.
The problem with this particular XML registration you posted is that the connection string is a parameter, but it's treated like a service.
Doing this with code registrations is much easier, e.g.:
var container = new WindsorContainer();
container.Register(Component.For<IConfigurationService>().ImplementedBy<RuntimeConfigurationService>());
container.Register(Component.For<ITheRepository>().ImplementedBy<TheRepository>()
.LifeStyle.Transient
.DynamicParameters((k, d) => {
var cfg = k.Resolve<IConfigurationService>();
d["connectionString"] = cfg.GetConnectionString();
k.ReleaseComponent(cfg);
}));
Or if you don't want to depend on IConfigurationService, you could do something like:
container.Register(Component.For<ITheRepository>().ImplementedBy<TheRepository>()
.LifeStyle.Transient
.DependsOn(Property.ForKey("connectionString")
.Is(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings[ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["connName"]].ConnectionString))
I have some trouble.
My application could be divided to 3 logical parts (import, processing and export). There are some parts of code which are used in several parts of my application. How can I determine which part of code called my log4net object?
What is best practice to log info in parts of code which are called from several places in the application?
I want to turn on and off the ability to log parts of my application from a config file.
If I turn off logging for the processing part of my app, how could I log info in the export part of my app when both of them use one method, in which I initialize my logger object?
You could add a separate logger for each section of your app that you want to log and then turn them off and on as needed. They would all be independent from one another and this can all be setup via the config.
By setting the additivity property to false, the loggers will all be independent of one another. Here's an example of the config portion:
<logger name="Logger1" additivity="false">
<level value="INFO" />
<appender-ref ref="Logger1File" />
</logger>
To use it in your code, reference it like this:
private static ILog _Logger1= LogManager.GetLogger("Logger1");
Anything you log to Logger1 will be separate from any other logger, including the root one.
log4net provides contexts for this purpose. I would suggest using a context stack like this:
using(log4net.ThreadContext.Stacks["Part"].Push("Import"))
log.Info("Message during importing");
using(log4net.ThreadContext.Stacks["Part"].Push("Processing"))
log.Info("Message during processing");
using(log4net.ThreadContext.Stacks["Part"].Push("Export"))
log.Info("Message during exporting");
The value on the stack can be shown in the logs by including %property{Part} in a PatternLayout.
I know how to send mails using the Microsoft Enterprise Library 2.0 using a text formatter. But these emails are always in plain text. Is there any way with entlib 2.0 to send these mails in HTML format?
Well that is funny, I am now writing my own answer.
What I did was use the source code of entlib.
Within
Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Logging and
Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Logging.TraceListenerData
I found the classes that I needed.
Copy EmailMessage.cs to EmailMessageHTML.cs
Copy EmailTraceListener.cs to EmailHTMLTraceListener.cs
Copy EmailTraceListenerData.cs to EmailHTMLTraceListenerData.cs
Put these classes in your own new Library Project.
Within EmailMessageHTML change all constructors to match the new classname and than ADD following line to the method:
protected MailMessage CreateMailMessage()
{
.....
message.IsBodyHtml = true;
.....
return message;
}
After that, I had to use this new EmailMessageHTML class in EmailHTMLTraceListener (change EmailMessage to EmailMessageHTML) and also use this EmailHTMLTraceListener in the new EmailHTMLTraceListenerData.cs file.
Compile this new project and than use this in your config as follows (example)
<loggingConfiguration
name="Logging Application Block"
tracingEnabled="true"
defaultCategory=""
logWarningsWhenNoCategoriesMatch="true">
<listeners>
<add toAddress="your#emailgoes.here"
fromAddress="yourserveraddress#goes.here"
subjectLineStarter=""
subjectLineEnder="My HTMLemailLogger"
smtpServer="localhost" smtpPort="25"
formatter="Text Formatter"
listenerDataType="MYLibrary.HTMLEmailLogger.EmailHTMLTraceListenerData,
MYLibrary.HTMLEmailLogger, Version=2.0.0.0,
Culture=neutral,
PublicKeyToken=null"
traceOutputOptions="None"
type="MYLibrary.HTMLEmailLogger.EmailHTMLTraceListener,
MYLibrary.HTMLEmailLogger,
Version=2.0.0.0,
Culture=neutral,
PublicKeyToken=null"
name="EmailHTML TraceListener"/>
</listeners>
</loggingConfiguration>
and add a valid category to log this to of course:
<add switchValue="All" name="OutOfBalanceBooking">
<listeners>
<add name="Database Trace Listener"/>
<add name="EmailHTML TraceListener"/>
</listeners>
</add>
Of course you need some HTML document to than log with EntLib. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
And indeed! I get a nice HTML email now for every outofbalance booking that customers make on the site...