I'd like to be able to implement this in my windsor castle container set up:
"For all types that implement IStartable in the current assembly register them and run the Start method for them."
Similar to what you can do using Autofac for things like registering Automapper mappings. eg
public class MyBlahViewModelMapper : IStartable
{
public void Start()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<MyBlahEntity, MyBlahViewModel>();
}
}
Autofac does it automagically.... I'm thinking Windsor can't help me here?
Windsor has its own IStartable interface. If you want Windsor to register your objects and create/run them immediately after that you'd use Startable Facility for that.
To clarify, there are two concepts here:
IStartable interface, which provides Start and Stop methods. This is a lifecycle interfaces that provide lifecycle callbacks: Start being called right after a component instance gets created (after the constructor runs)
Startable Facility, which forces your IStartable components to be instantiated and started immediately after installers have ran.
Here's what the code would look like:
container.AddFacility<StartableFacility>(f => f.DeferredStart());
container.Install(FromAssembly.This());
// by here all startable are started
If you're on Windsor 3.3 or later you can also manually trigger the startables to start (which is useful if you need to do some extra setup for them)
var flag = new StartFlag();
container.AddFacility<StartableFacility>(f => f.DeferredStart(flag));
container.Install(FromAssembly.This());
// do whatever else set up your app needs
// when ready, signal the flag
flag.Signal();
// by here all startable are started
The closest is Castle Windows Installers - they can trivially scanned from an assembly and installed (or 'started'). Installers are usually used to register components, but they can be used for other initialization as well.
Windsor uses installers (that is types implementing IWindsorInstaller interface) to encapsulate and partition your registration logic .. FromAssembly [makes] working with installers a breeze.
After creating an installer use one of the fluent configurations in the main IoC bootstrap, eg:
container.Install(
FromAssembly.This());
Note that the order is unspecified; installers that must occur in an order must be specified with an explicit order to Install, possibly through a modified assembly reflector.
Related
I know how to add a Bean to a CDI container during AfterBeanDiscovery. My problem is that what I really need to do is the equivalent of adding a new producer method with the equivalent of a particularly qualified parameter.
That is, I'd like to somehow programmatically create several of these:
#Produces
#SomeQualifier("x")
private Foo makeFoo(#SomeQualifier("x") final FooMaker fm) {
return fm.makeFoo();
}
...where the domain over which SomeQualifier's value element ranges is known only at AfterBeanDiscovery time. In other words, some other portable extension has installed two FooMaker instances into the container: FooMaker-qualified-by-#SomeQualifier("x") and FooMaker-qualified-by-#SomeQualifier("y"). Now I need to do the equivalent of making two producer methods to "match" them.
Nonbinding is not an option; I want this resolution to take place at container startup, not at injection time.
I am aware of BeanManager's getProducerFactory method, but the dozens if not hundreds of lines of gymnastics I'd have to go through to add the right qualifier annotation on each AnnotatedParameter "reachable" from the AnnotatedMethod I'd have to create by hand (to avoid generics issues) make me think I'm way off the beaten path here.
Update: So in my extension, I have created a private static method that returns a Foo, and has a FooMaker parameter. I've wrapped this in a hand-tooled AnnotatedMethod that reports SomeQualifier("x") etc. in its getAnnotations() method, and also reports SomeQualifier("x") etc. from its AnnotatedParameter's getAnnotations() method. Then I got a ProducerFactory from the BeanManager and feed that into a new Bean that I create, where I use it to implement the create and destroy methods. Everything compiles and so forth just fine.
(However, Weld (in particular) blows up with this usage, which leads me to think that I'm doing Really Bad Things™.)
I'm in the process of trying to migrate a R# extension project from R# 6 to R# 8. (I've taken over a project that someone wrote, and I'm new to writing extensions.)
In the existing v6 project there is a class that derives from RenameWorkflow, and the constructor used to look like this;
public class RenameStepWorkflow : RenameWorkflow
{
public RenameStepWorkflow(ISolution Solution, string ActionId)
: base(Solution, ActionId)
{
}
This used to work in R# SDK v 6, but now in V8, RenameWorkflow no longer has a constructor that takes Solution and actionId. The new constructor signature now looks like this;
public RenameWorkflow(
IShellLocks locks,
SearchDomainFactory searchDomainFactory,
RenameRefactoringService renameRefactoringService,
ISolution solution,
string actionId);
now heres my problem that I need help with (I think)
I've copied the constructor, and now the constructor of this class has to satisfy these new dependancies. Through some digging I've managed to find a way to satisfy all the dependencies, except for 'SearchDomainFactory'. The closest I can come to instantiating via the updated constructor is as follows;
new RenameStepWorkflow(Solution.Locks, JetBrains.ReSharper.Psi.Search.SearchDomainFactory.Instance, RenameRefactoringService.Instance, this.Solution, null)
All looks good, except that JetBrains.ReSharper.Psi.Search.SearchDomainFactory.Instance is marked as Obsolete, and gives me a compile error that I cannot work around, even using #pragma does not allow me to compile the code. The exact error message I get when I compile is Error 16 'JetBrains.ReSharper.Psi.Search.SearchDomainFactory.Instance' is obsolete: 'Inject me!'
Obvious next question..ok, how? How do I 'inject you'? I cannot find any documentation over this new breaking change, in fact, I cannot find any documentation (or sample projects) that even mentions DrivenRefactoringWorkflow or RenameWorkflow, (the classes that now require the new SearchDomainFactory), or any information on SearchDomainFactory.Instance suddenly now obsolete and how to satisfy the need to 'inject' it.
Any help would be most appreciated! Thank you,
regards
Alan
ReSharper has its own IoC container, which is responsible for creating instances of classes, and "injecting" dependencies as constructor parameters. Classes marked with attributes such as [ShellComponent] or [SolutionComponent] are handled by the container, created when the application starts or a solution is loaded, respectively.
Dependencies should be injected as constructor parameters, rather than using methods like GetComponent<TDependency> or static Instance properties, as this allows the container to control dependency lifetime, and ensure you're depending on appropriate components, and not creating leaks - a shell component cannot depend on a solution component for instance, it won't exist when the shell component is being created.
ReSharper introduced the IoC container a few releases ago, and a large proportion of the codebase has been updated to use it correctly, but there are a few hold-outs, where things are still done in a less than ideal manner - static Instance properties and calls to GetComponent. This is what you've encountered. You should be able to get an instance of SearchDomainFactory by putting it as a constructor parameter in your component.
You can find out more about the Component Model (the IoC container and related functionality) in the devguide: https://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/devguide/Platform/ComponentModel.html
What I need: a class with two parents, which are ContextBoundObject and another class.
Why: I need to access the ContextBoundOject to log the method calls.
Composition works? As of now, no (types are not recognized, among other things).
Are other ways to do this? Yes, but not so automatable and without third-party components (maybe a T4 could do, but I'm no expert).
A more detailed explanation.
I need to extend System classes (some of which have already MarshalByRefObject (which is the parent of ContextBoundObject) for parent, for example ServiceBase and FileSystemWatcher, and some not, for example Exception and Timer) to access some inner workings of the framework, so I can log method calls (for now; in future it may change).
If I use this way I only have to add a class name to the object I want to log, instead of adding the logging calls to every method, but obviously I can't do this:
public class MyService:ServiceBase,ContextBoundObject,IDisposable{
public MyService(){}
public Dispose(){}
}
so one could try the usual solution, interfaces, but then if I call Run as in:
ServiceBase.Run(new MyService());
using a hypotethical interface IServiceBase it wouldn't work, because the type ServiceBase is not castable to IServiceBase -- it doesn't inherit from any interface. The problem is even worse with exceptions: throw only accepts a type descending from Exception.
The reverse, producing a IContextBoundObject interface, doesn't seem to work either: the logging mechanism doesn't work by methods, so I don't need to implement any, just an attribute and some small internal classes (and inheriting from ContextBoundObject, not even from MarshalByRefObject, which the metadata present as practically the same).
From what I see, extending from ContextBoundObject puts the extended class in a Proxy (probably because in this way the method calls use SyncProcessMessage(IMessage) and so can be intercepted and logged), maybe there's a way to do it without inheritance, or maybe there could be pre or post compiling techniques available for surrounding methods with logging calls (like T4 Text Templates), I don't know.
If someone wants to give this a look, I used a customized version of MSTestExtentions in my program to do the logging (of the method calls).
Any ideas are appreciated. There could be the need for more explanations, just ask.
Logging method calls is usually done using attributes to annotate classes or methods for which you want to have logging enabled. This is called Aspect Oriented Programming.
For this to work, you need a software that understands those attributes and post-processes your assembly by adding the necessary code to the methods / classes that have been annotated.
For C# there exists PostSharp. See here for an introduction.
Experimenting with proxies I found a way that apparently logs explicit calls.
Essentially I create a RealProxy like in example in the msdn, then obtain the TransparentProxy and use that as the normal object.
The logging is done in the Invoke method overridden in the customized RealProxy class.
static void Main(){
...
var ServiceClassProxy=new ServiceRealProxy(typeof(AServiceBaseClass),new object[]{/*args*/});
aServiceInstance=(AServiceBaseClass)ServiceClassProxy.GetTransparentProxy();
ServiceBase.Run(aServiceInstance);
...
}
In the proxy class the Invoke will be done like this:
class ServiceRealProxy:RealProxy{
...
[SecurityPermissionAttribute(SecurityAction.LinkDemand, Flags=SecurityPermissionFlag.Infrastructure)]
public override IMessage Invoke(IMessage myIMessage){
// remember to set the "__Uri" property you get in the constructor
...
/* logging before */
myReturnMessage = ChannelServices.SyncDispatchMessage(myIMessage);
/* logging after */
...
return myReturnMessage;
// it could be useful making a switch for all the derived types from IMessage; I see 18 of them, from
// System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.ConstructionCall
// ... to
// System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.TransitionCall
}
...
}
I have still to investigate extensively, but the logging happened. This isn't an answer to my original problem because I have still to test this on classes that don't inherit from MarshalByRefObject.
I am very new to concept of IOC and I understand the fact that they help us resolve different classes in different contexts. Your calling class will just interact with Interface and Interface with decide which implementation to give you and it takes care of newing up the object.
Please do correct me if I am understanding is wrong because my question is based on that:
Now, I see this pattern very often in these projects:
private readonly IEmailService emailService;
private readonly ITemplateRenderer templateRenderer;
private readonly IHtmlToTextTransformer htmlToTextTransformer;
public TemplateEmailService(IEmailService emailService,
ITemplateRenderer templateRenderer,
IHtmlToTextTransformer htmlToTextTransformer)
{
this.emailService = emailService;
this.htmlToTextTransformer = htmlToTextTransformer;
this.templateRenderer = templateRenderer;
}
I understand that this helps using all the implementations of these classes without newing them up and also you don't have to decide WHICH implementaion to get, your IOC decides it for you, right?
but when I code like this, I do not even touch any IOC congiguration files. And again I am usin git for 2 days only but from all the tutorials that I have read, I was expecting my self to configure something which says "Resolve IParent to Child" class. But it works without me doing anything like it. Is it because there is only one implementaion of these interfaces? and If I do have more than one implementations then and then only I will have to configure resolved explicitly?
The code sample you have is a case of Constructor Injection.
In a traditional code, you would have a parameterless constructor, and in it you would "new-up" your objects like this:
IEmailService emailService = new EmailService();
So your code is explictly controlling which implementation gets assigned to the interface variable.
In IoC using constructor injection, control is inverted, meaning the container is "driving the bus" and is creating your TemplateEmailService object. When it is about to create it, the container looks at your constructor parameters (IEmailService , ITemplateRenderer , etc.) and feeds those objects to your class for use.
The IoC container can be configured so that interface A gets fulfilled by implementation B (or C) explicitly. Each one has a way to do it. Or it could do it by convention (IFoo fulfilled by Foo), or even attributes in classes, whatever.
So to answer your question-- you can explicitly define which implementations get used to fulfill certain interfaces. Got to read the IoC container docs for how to.
One more thing - "when you code like this", you technically don't have to be using an IoC container. In fact, your class should not have a direct reference to the container - it will maximize the reusability, and also allow easy testing. So you would wire-up interfaces to implementation classes elsewhere.
I have an IRepository< T > interface with many T's and several implementations (on-demand DB, web service, etc.). I use AutoFac to register IRepository's for many T's depending on the kind of repository I want for each T.
I also have a .NET-caching-based implementation that looks for T's in cache and then calls a 'real' IRepository.Find to resolve a cache miss. It is constructed something like this:
new CachingRepository(realRepository, cacheImplementation);
I would like to use a configuration flag to decide if AutoFac serves up caching-based IRepository's or the 'real things.' It seems like 'realRepository' comes from asking AutoFac to resolve IRepository < T > but then what do clients get when they ask to resolve the same interface? I want them to get the CachingRepository if the flag is set.
I can't get my head around how to implement this flag-based resolution. Any ideas?
Simplest Option: Conditional Registration Delegate
There are a number of ways to do this. Using your cache setting in a registration delegate is probably the simplest (and illustrates the power of delegate registrations):
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
bool cache = GetCacheConfigSetting(); //Up to you where this setting is.
builder.Register(c => cache ? (IRepository<string>)new CachingRepository<string>(new RealRepos<string>(), new CacheImpl()) : new RealRepos<string>());
The code above will only read the cache config once. You could also include the GetCacheConfigSetting() in the registration delegate. This would result in the setting being checked on every Resolve (assuming InstancePerDependency).
Other Options: Autofac Decorators and Modules
There are some more advanced features of Autofac that you may also find useful. The cache class in your question is an example of the Decorator Pattern. Autofac has explicit support for decorators. It also has a nice model for structuring your registrations and managing configuration information, called Modules.