I often need to use some class which itself have to load some dependency to work.
However, my component can have more than one concrete dependency implementation and it will choose one, rather than another one on some object parameter basis.
The real problem is that the object parameter is always unknown when application start up, so I'm not able in this moment to register any dependency, neither to resolve them.
Instead, for instance, when I need to use some class which itself needs to load some dependency I know the object parameter used by concreteBuilder in order to return me the appropriate implementation:
interface ISample { }
class ParamForBuildSomeISampleImplementation
{
// this instance cannot be create by my startUpApplication - Container - Resolver.
// Instead, all time dependency is required (buttonClick, pageLoad and so on), this class can be instantiated.
}
class Sample1 : ISample
{
// some implementation
}
class Sample2 : ISample
{
// some other implementation
}
class MyISampleFactory
{
// Build ISample
public ISample Build(ParamForBuilderISample obj)
{
// if obj.someProperty == ".." return new Sample1();
// else if obj.someProperty == "--" return new Sample2();
// else if ...
}
}
class NeedsDependency
{
ISample _someSample;
public NeedsDependency(ISample someSample)
{
_someSample = someSample;
}
}
// *** Controllor - ApplicationStartup - other ***
// Here I have not idea how to build ISample dependency
## EDIT
// *** button click event handler ***
// Ok, here I know how to create ParamForBuilderISample,
// hence I can call MyISampleFactory, then, I can Use NeedDependency class:
ParamForBuilderISample obj = new ...
obj.SomeProperty = ...
obj.otherSomeProperty = ...
ISample sample = MyISampleFactory.Build(obj);
NeedDependency nd = new NeedDependency(sample);
// perfect, now my buttonClick can execute all what it wants
nd.DoSomething();
nd.DoOtherStuff();
Is my scenario suitable to Dependency Injection pattern? If true, I really have not idea how build my pattern.
Instead of using constructor injection for passing in this 'runtime dependency', you might be better of using method injection. This might even completely remove the need for having a factory:
private readonly ISample sample;
public MyController(ISample sample) {
this.sample = sample;
}
public string button_click_event_handler(object s, EventArgs e) {
ParamForBuilderISample obj = new ...
obj.SomeProperty = ...
obj.otherSomeProperty = ...
this.sample.DoSomething(obj);
}
You still need to switch somewhere, but instead of having a factory, you could implement a proxy for ISample:
public class SampleProxy : ISample
{
private readonly Sample1 sample1;
private readonly Sample2 sample2;
public SampleProxy(Sample1 sample1, Sample2 sample2) {
this.sample1 = sample1;
this.sample2 = sample2;
}
public void DoSomething(ParamForBuilderISample param) {
this.GetSampleFor(param).DoSomething(param);
}
private ISample GetSampleFor(ParamForBuilderISample param) {
// if obj.someProperty == ".." return this.sample1;
// else if obj.someProperty == "--" return this.sample2;
// else if ...
}
}
Your ParamForBuilderISample looks like a parameter object. Dependency injection doesn't remove the need to have method arguments. Data should still be passed on through methods.
Related
I am writing unit tests for a public method which is, in turn, calling a private method of the class written in typescript (Node JS).
Sample Code
class A {
constructor() {
}
public method1() {
if(this.method2()) {
// Do something
} else {
// Do something else
}
}
private method2() {
return true;
}
}
Now to test method1() I need to stub method2() which is a private method.
here what I am trying :
sinon.stub(A.prototype, "method2");
Typescript is throwing the error :
Argument of type '"method2"' is not assignable to parameter of type '"method1"'
Any help would be appreciated.
Thank You
The problem is that the definition for sinon uses the following definition for the stub function :
interface SinonStubStatic { <T>(obj: T, method: keyof T): SinonStub; }
This means that the second parameter must be the name of a member (a public one) of the T type. This is probably a good restriction generally, but in this case it is a bit too restrictive.
You can get around it by casting to any:
sinon.stub(A.prototype, <any>"method2");
Sometimes when the complexity of code and tests is more significant I prefer to "externalize" private methods. You can do that, that either with a (partial) class or a (partial) interface.
it('private methods test', async () => {
// original class
class A{
public method1():string{
if(this.method2()) {
// Do something
return "true";
} else {
// Do something else
return "false";
}
}
// with private method
private method2():boolean{
return true;
}
}
// interface that makes the private method public
interface IAExternalized{
method2():boolean;
}
// class that makes the private method public
class APrivate implements IAExternalized{
// with public method
method2():boolean{
return true;
};
}
// test before mocking
let test:A = new A();
let result:string = test.method1();
result.should.be.equal("true");
// let's mock the private method, but with typechecking available
let stubMethod2:sinon.SinonStub = sinon.stub(<IAExternalized><unknown>(A.prototype), "method2").returns(false);
result = test.method1();
result.should.not.be.equal("true");
result.should.be.equal("false");
// access private method of an object through public-interface
let testPrivate:IAExternalized = <IAExternalized><unknown>test;
let result2:boolean = testPrivate.method2();
result2.should.not.be.equal(true);
result2.should.be.equal(false);
});
NOTE: If you control the code you are testing, you do not need to double code, prone to mistakes, but you can make your class implement the interface. To convert standard (without private) interface into "externalized" you can extend it with public methods.
export interface IAExternalized extends IAPrivate {
method2():boolean
};
I've got this compiletime errors when I make some class implement an interface with properties that have been fromerly defined in some native sub class, like openfl.display.Sprite. It occurs when I'm targeting flash, not js.
Field get_someValue needed by SomeInterface is missing
Field set_someValue needed by SomeInterface is missing
Field someValue has different property access than in SomeInterface (var should be (get,set))
In contrast, there's no problem with interface definitions of 'native' methods or 'non-native' properties. Those work.
Do I have to avoid that (not so typical) use of interfaces with haxe and rewrite my code? Or is there any way to bypass this problem?
Thanks in advance.
Example:
class NativePropertyInterfaceImplTest
{
public function new()
{
var spr:FooSprite = new FooSprite();
spr.visible = !spr.visible;
}
}
class FooSprite extends Sprite implements IFoo
{
public function new()
{
super();
}
}
interface IFoo
{
public var visible (get, set):Bool; // Cannot use this ):
}
TL;DR
You need to use a slightly different signature on the Flash target:
interface IFoo
{
#if flash
public var visible:Bool;
#else
public var visible (get, set):Bool;
#end
}
Additional Information
Haxe get and set imply that get_property():T and set_property(value:T):T both exist. OpenFL uses this syntax for many properties, including displayObject.visible.
Core ActionScript VM classes (such as Sprite) don't use Haxe get/set, but are native properties. This is why they look different.
Overriding Core Properties
If you ever need to override core properties like this, here is an example of how you would do so for both Flash and other targets on OpenFL:
class CustomSprite extends Sprite {
private var _visible:Bool = true;
public function new () {
super ();
}
#if flash
#:getter(visible) private function get_visible ():Bool { return _visible; }
#:setter(visible) private function set_visible (value:Bool):Void { _visible = value; }
#else
private override function get_visible ():Bool { return _visible; }
private override function set_visible (value:Bool):Bool { return _visible = value; }
#end
}
Overriding Custom Properties
This is not needed for custom properties, which are the same on all platforms:
class BaseClass {
public var name (default, set):String;
public function new () {
}
private function set_name (value:String) {
return this.name = value;
}
}
class SuperClass {
public function new () {
super ();
}
private override function set_name (value:String):String {
return this.name = value + " Q. Public";
}
}
Need to provide the method signatures in an Interface. Currently its just a property declaration.
The error message is saying it all.
Field get_someValue needed by SomeInterface is missing
Field set_someValue needed by SomeInterface is missing
Hopefully that helps.
I am using Unity as IOC and trying to inject an interface with a factory method which takes a interface as a parameter.
For some reason the configReader parameter in the factory method GetTitleParser(), is null and not getting the injected ConfigurationReader() instance.
When i place a debug point at the line in RegisterTypes method where the new InjectionFactory exists, ITitleParser is not showing as mapped to a proper mapped type.
can anyone help what am i doing wrong here?
Here is my code:
public class UnityContainerBuilder
{
public static IUnityContainer Build()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
RegisterTypes(container);
return container;
}
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
// NOTE: To load from web.config uncomment the line below. Make sure to add a Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration to the using statements.
container.LoadConfiguration();
container.RegisterType<IConfigurationReader, ConfigurationReader>();
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(new InjectionFactory(c => ParserFactory.GetTitleParser()));
}
}
public class ParserFactory
{
public static ITitleParser GetTitleParser(IConfigurationReader configReader=null)
{
if(configReader==null) configReader = new ConfigurationReader();
/* rest of code here...*/
return parser;
}
}
It works when i use the following code. Is this the right way to do this?
container.RegisterType<IConfigurationReader, ConfigurationReader>();
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(new InjectionFactory(c =>
{
var configReader = c.Resolve<IConfigurationReader>();
var parser = ParserFactory.GetTitleParser(configReader);
return parser;
}));
When you use default parameters it's equal to:
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(
new InjectionFactory(c => ParserFactory.GetTitleParser(null)));
Because, compiler inserts all default values in method calls (null in your case).
So, your code is valid:
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(new InjectionFactory(c =>
{
var configReader = c.Resolve<IConfigurationReader>();
var parser = ParserFactory.GetTitleParser(configReader);
return parser;
}));
But i advice you to remove default value to make code more expressive.
Your code is valid but maybe you can avoid messing up with InjectionFactory parameters and ParserFactory.
public class UnityContainerBuilder
{
public static IUnityContainer Build()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
RegisterTypes(container);
return container;
}
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
// NOTE: To load from web.config uncomment the line below. Make sure to add a Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration to the using statements.
container.LoadConfiguration();
container.RegisterType<IConfigurationReader, ConfigurationReader>();
container.RegisterInstance<IAppConfig>(container.Resolve<IConfigurationReader>().ReadConfiguration());
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser, TitleParser>();
}
}
public class AppConfig: IAppConfig
{
public AppConfig(){}
//value1 property
//value2 property
//etc
}
public class ConfigurationReader: IConfigurationReader
{
public ConfigurationReader(){}
public IAppConfig ReadConfiguration(){
var currentConfig = new AppConfig();
//read config from file, DB, etc and init currentCongif
return currentConfig;
}
}
public class TitleParser : ITitleParser
{
public TitleParser(IAppConfif)
{
//config already readed, just do the work
}
}
In java we can write thead-safe singletons using double Checked Locking & volatile:
public class Singleton {
private static volatile Singleton instance;
public static Singleton getInstance(String arg) {
Singleton localInstance = instance;
if (localInstance == null) {
synchronized (Singleton.class) {
localInstance = instance;
if (localInstance == null) {
instance = localInstance = new Singleton(arg);
}
}
}
return localInstance;
}
}
How we can write it in kotlin?
About object
object A {
object B {}
object C {}
init {
C.hashCode()
}
}
I used kotlin decompiler to get that
public final class A {
public static final A INSTANCE;
private A() {
INSTANCE = (A)this;
A.C.INSTANCE.hashCode();
}
static {
new A();
}
public static final class B {
public static final A.B INSTANCE;
private B() {
INSTANCE = (A.B)this;
}
static {
new A.B();
}
}
public static final class C {
public static final A.C INSTANCE;
private C() {
INSTANCE = (A.C)this;
}
static {
new A.C();
}
}
}
All of object have constructor invoke in static block. Based on it, we can think that it's not lazy.
Сlose to the right answer.
class Singleton {
companion object {
val instance: Singleton by lazy(LazyThreadSafetyMode.PUBLICATION) { Singleton() }
}
}
Decompiled:
public static final class Companion {
// $FF: synthetic field
private static final KProperty[] $$delegatedProperties = new KProperty[]{(KProperty)Reflection.property1(new PropertyReference1Impl(Reflection.getOrCreateKotlinClass(Singleton.Companion.class), "instance", "getInstance()Lru/example/project/tech/Singleton;"))};
#NotNull
public final Singleton getInstance() {
Lazy var1 = Singleton.instance$delegate;
KProperty var3 = $$delegatedProperties[0];
return (Singleton)var1.getValue();
}
private Companion() {
}
// $FF: synthetic method
public Companion(DefaultConstructorMarker $constructor_marker) {
this();
}
}
I hope Kotlin developers will make non reflection implementation in future...
Kotlin has an equivalent of your Java code, but more safe. Your double lock check is not recommended even for Java. In Java you should use an inner class on the static which is also explained in Initialization-on-demand holder idiom.
But that's Java. In Kotlin, simply use an object (and optionally a lazy delegate):
object Singletons {
val something: OfMyType by lazy() { ... }
val somethingLazyButLessSo: OtherType = OtherType()
val moreLazies: FancyType by lazy() { ... }
}
You can then access any member variable:
// Singletons is lazy instantiated now, then something is lazy instantiated after.
val thing = Singletons.something // This is Doubly Lazy!
// this one is already loaded due to previous line
val eager = Singletons.somethingLazyButLessSo
// and Singletons.moreLazies isn't loaded yet until first access...
Kotlin intentionally avoids the confusion people have with singletons in Java. And avoids the "wrong versions" of this pattern -- of which there are many. It instead provides the simpler and the safest form of singletons.
Given the use of lazy(), if you have other members each would individually be lazy. And since they are initialized in the lambda passed to lazy() you can do things that you were asking about for about customizing the constructor, and for each member property.
As a result you have lazy loading of Singletons object (on first access of instance), and then lazier loading of something (on first access of member), and complete flexibility in object construction.
See also:
lazy() function
Lazy thread safe mode options
Object declarations
As a side note, look at object registry type libraries for Kotlin that are similar to dependency injection, giving you singletons with injection options:
Injekt - I'm the author
Kodein - Very similar and good
Object declaration is exactly for this purpose:
object Singleton {
//singleton members
}
It is lazy and thread-safe, it initializes upon first call, much as Java's static initializers.
You can declare an object at top level or inside a class or another object.
For more info about working with objects from Java, please refer to this answer.
As to the parameter, if you want to achieve exactly the same semantics (first call to getInstance takes its argument to initialize the singleton, following calls just return the instance, dropping the arguments), I would suggest this construct:
private object SingletonInit { //invisible outside the file
lateinit var arg0: String
}
object Singleton {
val arg0: String = SingletonInit.arg0
}
fun Singleton(arg0: String): Singleton { //mimic a constructor, if you want
synchronized(SingletonInit) {
SingletonInit.arg0 = arg0
return Singleton
}
}
The main flaw of this solution is that it requires the singleton to be defined in a separate file to hide the object SingletonInit, and you cannot reference Singleton directly until it's initialized.
Also, see a similar question about providing arguments to a singleton.
I recently wrote an article on that topic.
TL;DR Here's the solution I came up to:
1) Create a SingletonHolder class. You only have to write it once:
open class SingletonHolder<out T, in A>(creator: (A) -> T) {
private var creator: ((A) -> T)? = creator
#Volatile private var instance: T? = null
fun getInstance(arg: A): T {
val i = instance
if (i != null) {
return i
}
return synchronized(this) {
val i2 = instance
if (i2 != null) {
i2
} else {
val created = creator!!(arg)
instance = created
creator = null
created
}
}
}
}
2) Use it like this in your singletons:
class MySingleton private constructor(arg: ArgumentType) {
init {
// Init using argument
}
companion object : SingletonHolder<MySingleton, ArgumentType>(::MySingleton)
}
The singleton initialization will be lazy and thread-safe.
Consider the following existing classes which uses MEF to compose Consumer.
public interface IProducer
{
void Produce();
}
[Export(typeof(IProducer))]
public class Producer : IProducer
{
public Producer()
{
// perform some initialization
}
public void Produce()
{
// produce something
}
}
public class Consumer
{
[Import]
public IProducer Producer
{
get;
set;
}
[ImportingConstructor]
public Consumer(IProducer producer)
{
Producer = producer;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
// do something
Producer.Produce();
}
}
However, the creation of Producer has become complex enough that it can no longer be done within the constructor and the default behavior no longer suffices.
I'd like to introduce a factory and register it using a custom FactoryAttribute on the producer itself. This is what I have in mind:
[Export(typeof(IProducer))]
[Factory(typeof(ProducerFactory))]
public class Producer : IProducer
{
public Producer()
{
// perform some initialization
}
public void Produce()
{
// produce something
}
}
[Export]
public class ProducerFactory
{
public Producer Create()
{
// Perform complex initialization
return new Producer();
}
}
public class FactoryAttribute : Attribute
{
public Type ObjectType
{
get;
private set;
}
public FactoryAttribute(Type objectType)
{
ObjectType = objectType;
}
}
If I had to write the "new" code myself, it may very well look as follows. It would use the factory attribute, if it exists, to create a part, or default to the MEF to create it.
public object Create(Type partType, CompositionContainer container)
{
var attribute = (FactoryAttribute)partType.GetCustomAttributes(typeof (FactoryAttribute), true).FirstOrDefault();
if (attribute == null)
{
var result = container.GetExports(partType, null, null).First();
return result.Value;
}
else
{
var factoryExport = container.GetExports(attribute.ObjectType, null, null).First();
var factory = factoryExport.Value;
var method = factory.GetType().GetMethod("Create");
var result = method.Invoke(factory, new object[0]);
container.ComposeParts(result);
return result;
}
}
There are a number of articles how to implement a ExportProvider, including:
MEF + Object Factories using Export Provider
Dynamic Instantiation
However, the examples are not ideal when
The application has no dependencies or knowledge of Producer, only IProducer. It would not be able to register the factory when the CompositionContainer is created.
Producer is reused by several applications and a developer may mistakenly forget to register the factory when the CompositionContainer is created.
There are a large number of types that require custom factories and it may pose a maintenance nightmare to remember to register factories when the CompositionContainer is created.
I started to create a ExportProvider (assuming this would provide the means to implement construction using factory).
public class FactoryExportProvider : ExportProvider
{
protected override IEnumerable<Export> GetExportsCore(ImportDefinition definition,
AtomicComposition atomicComposition)
{
// What to do here?
}
}
However, I'm having trouble understanding how to tell MEF to use the factory objects defined in the FactoryAttribute, and use the default creation mechanism if no such attribute exists.
What is the correct manner to implement this? I'm using MEF 2 Preview 5 and .NET 4.
You can make use of a property export:
public class ProducerExporter
{
[Export]
public IProducer MyProducer
{
get
{
var producer = new Producer();
// complex initialization here
return producer;
}
}
}
Note that the term factory isn't really appropriate for your example, I would reserve that term for the case where the importer wants to create instances at will, possibly by providing one or more parameters. That could be done with a method export:
public class ProducerFactory
{
[Export(typeof(Func<Type1,Type2,IProducer>)]
public IProducer CreateProducer(Type1 arg1, Type2 arg2)
{
return new Producer(arg1, arg2);
}
}
On the import side, you would then import a Func<Type1,Type2,IProducer> that you can invoke at will to create new instances.