If I extend the generated aspnetboilerplate UserManager class (from the startup template), any time I use the RoleManager I receive a ObjectDisposedException exception. I assume this is related to dependency injection. Is there something obvious I am doing wrong (or should not be doing)?
Here is the UserManager class definition (with the method I added at the bottom)
namespace MyProject.Authorization.Users
{
public class UserManager : AbpUserManager<Role, User>
{
public UserManager(
RoleManager roleManager,
UserStore store,
IOptions<IdentityOptions> optionsAccessor,
IPasswordHasher<User> passwordHasher,
IEnumerable<IUserValidator<User>> userValidators,
IEnumerable<IPasswordValidator<User>> passwordValidators,
ILookupNormalizer keyNormalizer,
IdentityErrorDescriber errors,
IServiceProvider services,
ILogger<UserManager<User>> logger,
IPermissionManager permissionManager,
IUnitOfWorkManager unitOfWorkManager,
ICacheManager cacheManager,
IRepository<OrganizationUnit, long> organizationUnitRepository,
IRepository<UserOrganizationUnit, long> userOrganizationUnitRepository,
IOrganizationUnitSettings organizationUnitSettings,
ISettingManager settingManager)
: base(
roleManager,
store,
optionsAccessor,
passwordHasher,
userValidators,
passwordValidators,
keyNormalizer,
errors,
services,
logger,
permissionManager,
unitOfWorkManager,
cacheManager,
organizationUnitRepository,
userOrganizationUnitRepository,
organizationUnitSettings,
settingManager)
{
}
public void GoBoom()
{
var role = RoleManager.Roles.FirstOrDefault();
}
}
}
Usage (here, directly injected and used on a razor view)
#inject MyProject.Authorization.Users.UserManager _userManager
#{
_userManager.GoBoom();
}
Add [UnitOfWork] attribute and make it a virtual method:
[UnitOfWork]
public virtual void GoBoom()
{
...
}
See: UnitOfWork Attribute Restrictions
You can use UnitOfWork attribute for:
All public or public virtual methods for classes that are used over an interface (Like an application service used over a service interface).
All public virtual methods for self-injected classes (Like MVC Controllers and Web API Controllers).
All protected virtual methods.
Related
I have a custom dbcontext which name is Tracker-enabled DbContext (https://github.com/bilal-fazlani/tracker-enabled-dbcontext).I want to use it for audit log
And how can I implement EFRepository?
I implemented tracker-enabled-context but i cant solve how override sharp repo commit method.
public class HayEntities : TrackerContext
{
static HayEntities()
{
Database.SetInitializer<HayEntities>(null);
}
public HayEntities() : base(HayEntities)
{
this.Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
this.Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = true;
this.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false;
}
public DbSet<Dummy> Dummys{ get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new DummyConfiguration());
} }
}
public class DummyRepository : ConfigurationBasedRepository<DE.Dummy, long>, IDummyRepository
{
private readonly IRepository<DE.Dummy, long> _servisHasarRepository;
public DummyRepository (HayEntities hayEntities, ICachingStrategy<DE.Dummy, long> cachingStrategy = null)
{this.CachingEnabled = false;
_dummyRepository = new EfRepository<DE.Dummy, long>(hayEntities, cachingStrategy);
}
public void UpdateOrCreate() {
//In this area how can override save/commit method
}
}
You will want to tell SharpRepository to use an IoC provider to inject the DbContext. This will take care of getting the proper DbContext for your EfRepository.
If you want to control things based on the configuration and have custom repositories so you can implement your own mehods like UpdateOrCreate() then you would inherit from ConfigurationBasedRepository as you have in the example.
There are more details on setting up IoC with SharpRepository here: http://fairwaytech.com/2013/02/sharprepository-configuration/ (look in the "Entity Framework and Sharing the DbContext" section)
First look on NuGet for SharpRepository.Ioc.* to find the specific IoC you are using. If you are using StructureMap then you would do something like this.
In your StructureMap configuration:
// Hybrid (once per thread or ASP.NET request if you’re in a web application)
For<DbContext>()
.HybridHttpOrThreadLocalScoped()
.Use<HayEntities>()
.Ctor<string>("connectionString").Is(entityConnectionString);
Then you need to tell SharpRepository to use StructureMap by calling this in your startup code:
RepositoryDependencyResolver.SetDependencyResolver(new StructureMapDependencyResolver(ObjectFactory.Container));
After doing these things, then if you use EfRepository then it will know to ask StructureMap for the DbContext.
Now in your example above where you are using ConfigurationBasedRepository, I would suggest setting the caching in the configuration file instead of in code since you are using the configuration to load the repository. Since IoC is handling the DbContext you don't need to do anyhing with that and you can focus on the custom method you want to write.
public class DummyRepository : ConfigurationBasedRepository<DE.Dummy, long>, IDummyRepository
{
public void UpdateOrCreate()
{
// You have access to the underlying IRepository<> which is going to be an EfRepository in your case assuming you did that in the config file
// here you can call Repository.Add(), or Reposiory.Find(), etc.
}
}
I have a MVC3 project that uses the Entity Framework and Ninject v2.2, and follows the Unit of Work pattern with a Service Layer wrapping my repositories.
After looking at the code below, hopefully its apparent that Ninject is using constructor chaining to inject the correct classes. It currently works prefectly in my application, however I am at the point that I need to bind an instance of IDatabase to MyDatabase with a different scope such as InSingletonScope() or InNamedScope(), not InRequestScope(). I know that I can use the [Named("MyDatabaseScope")] Attribute to customize which IDatabase object is injected, however it seems that with my code structure, if I wanted to inject my SingletonScoped instance, I would have to recreate a new Abstract and Concrete Implementation of my Unit of Work, my Service and all my Repositories, that will then chain down.
Basically my application currently goes
Controller -> Unit of Work -> Database, (Repositories -> Database)
If I have to change my Database Binding, I will now have to create another chain in addition to the current one:
Controller -> New Unit of Work -> SingletonDatabase, (New Repositories-> SingletonDatabase)
This seems to completely defeat the DRY principal. Is there a way to, from the Controller Constructor, inform Ninject that when doing constructor chaining it should use my singleton (or named binding) rather than my request scope binding, without having to recreate all my classes with a Named attribute, or a new Interface?
Sorry for the long text, I wasnt sure if I could get the point across without my code snippets and my somewhat rambling explaination.
Ninject Module Load Function:
..snip..
Bind<IUserServices>().To<UserServices>();
Bind<IBaseServices>().To<BaseServices>();
Bind<IUserRepository>().To<UserRepository>();
Bind(typeof (IRepository<>)).To(typeof (RepositoryBase<>));
Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<UnitOfWork>();
Bind<IDatabase>().To<MyDatabase>().InRequestScope();
//This is my problem:
//Bind<IDatabase>().To<MySingletonDatabase>().InSingletonScope();
Unit of Work Implementation Constructor:
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
{
private IDatabase _database;
public UnitOfWork(IDatabase database,
IUserRepository userRepository,
IPeopleRepository peopleRepository,
)
{
this._database = database;
this.UserRepository = userRepository;
this.PeopleRepository = peopleRepository;
}
protected IDatabase Database
{
get { return _database; }
}
...snip...
}
User Service Layer Implementation Constructor:
public class UserServices : BaseServices, IUserServices
{
private IUnitOfWork _uow;
public UserServices(IUnitOfWork uow)
: base(uow)
{
_uow = uow;
}
...snip...
}
User Repository Constructor:
public class UserRepository : RepositoryBase<User>, IUserRepository
{
public UserRepository(IDatabase database)
: base(database)
{
}
...snip...
}
Controller Constructor:
public IUserServices _userServices { get; set; }
public ActivityController(IUserServices userServices)
{
_userServices = userServices;
}
}
Using Ninject 3.0.0 you can use WhenAnyAncestrorNamed("Some name") But if you need to run asyncronous things you should thing about splitting your application into a web frontend and a server backend. This could make many things easier.
I have read as many of the posts on Stackoverflow as I can find with regards the use of a Unit of Work pattern within
an ASP.Net MVC 3 application which includes a Business Layer. However, I still have a couple of questions with
regards this topic and would greatly appreciate any feedback people can give me.
I am developing an ASP.Net MVC 3 Web application which uses EF 4.1. I will be using both the Repository and
Unit of Work Patterns with this project similar to how they are used in this great tutorial
The difference in my project is that I need to also include a Business Layer (separate project in my solution) in order to
carry out the various business rules for the application. The tutorial mentioned above does not have a Business layer, and
therefore creates an instance of the Unit of Work class from the controller
public class CourseController : Controller
{
private UnitOfWork unitOfWork = new UnitOfWork();
However, my question is, where should I create the instance of the Unit of Work class if I have a Business Layer?
I personally think it should be created in my controller and then injected into the Business Layer like so:
public class PeopleController : Controller
{
private readonly IUnitOfWork _UoW;
private IPersonService _personService;
public PeopleController()
{
_UoW = new UnitOfWork();
_personService = new PersonService(_UoW);
}
public PeopleController(IUnitOfWork UoW, IPersonService personService)
{
_UoW = UoW;
_personService = personService;
}
public ActionResult Edit(int id)
{
Person person = _personService.Edit(id);
return View(person);
}
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork, IDisposable
{
private BlogEntities _context = new BlogEntities();
private PersonRepository personRepository = null;
public IPersonRepository PersonRepository
{
get
{
if (this.personRepository == null)
{
this.personRepository = new PersonRepository(_context);
}
return personRepository;
}
}
public void Save()
{
_context.SaveChanges();
}
public class PersonService : IPersonService
{
private readonly IUnitOfWork _UoW;
public PersonService(IUnitOfWork UoW)
{
_UoW = UoW;
}
public Person Edit(int id)
{
Person person = _UoW.PersonRepository.GetPersonByID(id);
return person;
}
public class PersonRepository : IPersonRepository
{
private readonly BlogEntities _context;
public PersonRepository(BlogEntities context)
{
_context = context;
}
public Person GetPersonByID(int ID)
{
return _context.People.Where(p => p.ID == ID).Single();
}
I have read others saying that the Unit of Work instantiation should not be in the Controller, but created in the Service Layer
instead. The reason why I am not so sure about this approach is because my Controller may have to use several different
Service Layers in one business transaction, and if the Unit of Work instance was created inside each Service, it would result in several
Unit of Work instances being created, which defeats the purpose, ie, one Unit of Work per business transaction.
Maybe what I have explained above is wrong, but if so, I would greatly appreciate if someone could put me right.
Thanks again for your help.
I think you have a couple of changes to make:.
Allow your DI container to inject a UnitOfWork instance into your Service classes in their constructors, and leave it out of your Controller altogether.
If your DI container supports it (Ninject does, for example), configure your UnitOfWork to be managed on a per-request basis; this way your services will be handed a distinct UnitOfWork for each request, and you're all done. Or...
If your DI container does not support per-request lifetimes, configure it to manage the UnitOfWork as a singleton, so every Service class gets the same instance. Then update your UnitOfWork to store its Entities object in a data store which stores objects on a per-request basis, for example in HttpContext.Current.Items, as described here.
Edit 1
Regarding where the UnitOfWork should be injected; I'd say the Service layer is the correct place. If you imagine your system as a series of layers where the outer layers deal with user interactions and the lower layers deal with data storage, each layer should become less concerned with users and more concerned with data storage. UnitOfWork is a concept from one of the 'lower-level' layers and Controller is from a higher-level layer; your Service layer fits between them. It therefore makes sense to put the UnitOfWork into the Service class rather than the Controller.
Edit 2
To elaborate on the UnitOfWork creation and it's relationship to HttpContext.Current.Items:
Your UnitOfWork would no longer hold a reference to an Entities object, that would be done through the HttpContext object, injected into the UnitOfWork behind an interface like this:
public interface IPerRequestDataStore : IDisposable
{
bool Contains(string key);
void Store<T>(string key, T value);
T Get<T>(string key);
}
The HttpContext object would then implement IPerRequestDataStore like this:
public class StaticHttpContextPerRequestDataStore : IPerRequestDataStore
{
public bool Contains(string key)
{
return HttpContext.Current.Items.Contains(key);
}
public void Store<T>(string key, T value)
{
HttpContext.Current.Items[key] = value;
}
public T Get<T>(string key)
{
if (!this.Contains(key))
{
return default(T);
}
return (T)HttpContext.Current.Items[key];
}
public void Dispose()
{
var disposables = HttpContext.Current.Items.Values.OfType<IDisposable>();
foreach (var disposable in disposables)
{
disposable.Dispose();
}
}
}
As an aside, I've called it StaticHttpContextPerRequestDataStore as it uses the static HttpContext.Current property; that's not ideal for unit testing (another topic altogether), but at least the name indicates the nature of its dependency.
Your UnitOfWork then passes the IPerRequestDataStore it's given to each of its Repository objects so they can access the Entities; this means that no matter how many UnitOfWork instances you create, you'll use the same Entities object throughout a request because it's stored and retrieved in the IPerRequestDataStore.
You'd have an abstract base Repository which would use its IPerRequestDataStore to lazy-load its Entities object like this:
public abstract class RepositoryBase : IDisposable
{
private readonly IPerRequestDataStore _dataStore;
private PersonRepository personRepository;
protected RepositoryBase(IPerRequestDataStore dataStore)
{
this._dataStore = dataStore;
}
protected BlogEntities Context
{
get
{
const string contextKey = "context";
if (!this._dataStore.Contains(contextKey))
{
this._dataStore.Store(contextKey, new BlogEntities());
}
return this._dataStore.Get<BlogEntities>(contextKey);
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
this._dataStore.Dispose();
}
}
Your PeopleRepository (for example) would look like this:
public class PeopleRepository : RepositoryBase, IPersonRepository
{
public PeopleRepository(IPerRequestDataStore dataStore)
: base(dataStore)
{
}
public Person FindById(int personId)
{
return this.Context.Persons.FirstOrDefault(p => p.PersonId == personId);
}
}
And finally, here's the creation of your PeopleController:
IPerRequestDataStore dataStore = new StaticHttpContextDataStore();
UnitOfWork unitOfWork = new UnitOfWork(dataStore);
PeopleService service = new PeopleService(unitOfWork);
PeopleController controller = new PeopleController(service);
One of the central concepts here is that objects have their dependencies injected into them via their constructors; this is generally accepted as good practice, and more easily allows you to compose objects from other objects.
I created a web application using ASP.Net MVC 3 and EF 4.1, and I am using the UnitOfWork pattern, but nothing is getting committed to the database. All this is quite new to me, and I don't know where to start to resolve this issue.
I based myself on this post to create my web application:
http://weblogs.asp.net/shijuvarghese/archive/2011/01/06/developing-web-apps-using-asp-net-mvc-3-razor-and-ef-code-first-part-1.aspx
The final code, which can be obtained here also has a service layer and the UnitOfWOrk is being injected into the services.
Instead of using the custom injector based on Unity 2 as they are in that project, I am using Unity.Mvc3.
Here is my IUnitOfWork class:
public interface IUnitOfWork
{
void Commit();
}
And here is my UnitOfWork class:
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
{
private readonly IDatabaseFactory databaseFactory;
private MyProjectContext dataContext;
public UnitOfWork(IDatabaseFactory databaseFactory)
{
this.databaseFactory = databaseFactory;
}
protected MyProjectContext DataContext
{
get { return dataContext ?? (dataContext = databaseFactory.Get()); }
}
public void Commit()
{
DataContext.Commit();
}
}
And here is how one of my service class look like:
public class RegionService : IRegionService
{
private readonly IRegionRepository regionRepository;
private readonly IUnitOfWork unitOfWork;
public RegionService(IRegionRepository regionRepository, IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
this.regionRepository = regionRepository;
this.unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
}
...
}
At start-up, my UnitOfWork component is being registered like this:
container.RegisterType<IUnitOfWork, UnitOfWork>();
Now, no matter whether I try to insert, update or delete, no request is being sent to the database. What am my missing here?
UPDATE:
Here is the content of DataContext.Commit():
public class MyProjectContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Region> Regions { get; set; }
public virtual void Commit()
{
base.SaveChanges();
}
}
And here is databaseFactory.Get():
public interface IDatabaseFactory : IDisposable
{
MyProjectContext Get();
}
UPDATE #2:
Using the debugger, I am noticing that my Region service and controller constructors are getting called once when performing only a select, but they are called twice when performing an update. Is this normal?
Ok, I found the culprit. It has to do with how I was registering my database factory.
Instead of
container.RegisterType<IDatabaseFactory, DatabaseFactory>();
I needed
container.RegisterType<IDatabaseFactory, DatabaseFactory>(new HierarchicalLifetimeManager());
I found the information on this web site:
http://www.devtrends.co.uk/blog/introducing-the-unity.mvc3-nuget-package-to-reconcile-mvc3-unity-and-idisposable
That's an awfully complex implementation of Unit of Work. I actually prefer this one:
http://azurecoding.net/blogs/brownie/archive/2010/09/22/irepository-lt-t-gt-and-iunitofwork.aspx
Much simpler, and much more flexible. Although you do have to work out a few things for yourself.
May just be a typo but in UnitOfWork your private MyProjectContext is called dataContext (lowercase d)
But in your commit method your calling DataContext.Commit. Any chance that's actually calling a static method that you didn't intend to call? More likely a typo but thought I'd point it out.
+1 for an overly complex implementation of UnitOfWork.
I have ASP.NET MVC3 project where I want to use custom membership provider. Also I want to use Unity for resolving my dependency injection.
this is code from Global.asax:
protected void Application_Start()
{
AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas();
RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilters.Filters);
RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<IAuthentification, Authentification>();
container.RegisterType<IRepository, Repository>();
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new UnityDependencyResolver(container));
}
this is code from my membership provider:
public class CustomMembershipProvider : MembershipProvider
{
[Dependency]
private IProveaRepository Repository { get; set; }
public override bool ValidateUser(string username, string password)
{
.....
}
Problem is when I put breakpoint to ValidateUser method I see that Repository property not initialized. But this construction:
[Dependency]
private IProveaRepository Repository { get; set; }
for example, works fine in controllers.
Does anybody know why it is so and what to do?
I had the same problem over the last couple of days. I ended up with the following solution (type and field names changed to match yours).
public class CustomMembershipProvider : MembershipProvider
{
private IProveaRepository repository;
public CustomMembershipProvider()
: this (DependencyResolver.Current.GetService<IProveaRepository>())
{ }
public CustomMembershipProvider(IProveaRepository repository)
{
this.repository= repository;
}
public override bool ValidateUser(string username, string password)
{
...
}
}
So even though Unity is not in control of the building of the CustomMembershipProvider, the parameterless constructor gets Unity involed (via the MVC3 DependencyResolver) to supply the correct repository instance.
If you're unit testing the CustomMembershipProvider then you can just build an instance with Unity directly, which will use the second constructor and avoid the call to DependencyResolver.
Unity cannot inject IProveaRepository instance into you custom membership provider because :
You did not configured it to do so
CustomMembershipProvider is not resolved by unity so it has no control on injecting into it the dependencies
If you're using your membership priovider class in your code you could do the following :
Try to wrapp your customMembershipProvider in an abstraction for example IMembershipProvider that has only signature for methods that you use. The result is like that :
public class CustomMembershipProvider : MembershipProvider, IMembershipProvider
Then you could register it in unity :
container.RegisterType<IMembershipProvider, CustomMembershipProvider>(new InjectionProperty(new ResolvedParameter<IProveaRepository>()));
Then the constraint is to pass the dependency in your controller like that :
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private IMembershipProvider _membershipprovider;
public HomeController(IMembershipProvider membershipProvider)
{
_membershipProvider = membershipProvider
}
// some actions
}
But it would be event better to not user the property injection but the constructor injection like that :
public class CustomMembershipProvider : MembershipProvider
{
private IProveaRepository Repository { get; set; }
public CustomMembershipProvider(IProveaRepository proveaRepository)
{
Repository = proveaRepository
}
public override bool ValidateUser(string username, string password)
{
.....
}
It's the way I understand it and would do it. But maybe there is a better approach or I'm ignoring some of Unity API that would help to achieve it easier.
Anyway I hope it helps.
While as others said Unity cannot inject dependencies in providers because they're not known
to the container and, even if could be a registration of a provider, you haven't a "factory point" where building the provider through the container, there's a solution which doesn't violate good design principles. (This because, even if most people ignore this, using a ServiceFactory is too close to an antipattern...)
But, a good solution could be the association of using the [Dependency] attribute in conjunction with the Unity BuildUp method.
So taking your example, to get what you're trying to do, leave all the things as they are, and put in the provider constructor the BuildUp call
public class CustomMembershipProvider : MembershipProvider
{
[Dependency]
private IProveaRepository Repository { get; set; }
public CustomMembershipProvider()
{
//contextual obtained container reference
unityContainer.BuildUp(this);
.....
}
public override bool ValidateUser(string username, string password)
{
.....
}
I hope it helps.