I am trying to use Ninject to manage my Redis dependencies on a ASP.NET Web Api project.
I do my binding like this:
var clientManager = new PooledRedisClientManager("localhost");
kernel.Bind<IRedisClientsManager>()
.ToMethod(ctx => clientManager)
.InSingletonScope();
kernel.Bind<IRedisClient>()
.ToMethod(k => k.Kernel.Get<IRedisClientsManager>()
.GetClient());
How can I subsequently get access to my redis client in other classes in the project?
I'm not familiar with Redis, so beware...
Now that you've got a binding, you can inject it into a constructor
public class Foo {
public Foo(IRedisClient redisClient) {...}
}
Or you can use a func to access/create it at a specific time:
public class Foo {
private readonly Func<IRedisClient> redisClientFunc;
public Foo(Func<IRedisClient> redisClientFunc)
{
this.redisClientFunc = redisClientFunc;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
IRedisClient client = this.redisClientFunc();
client.SayHello();
}
}
or, equivalently, you can use the ninject factory extension to achieve the same as the func, but with an interface, see https://github.com/ninject/ninject.extensions.factory/wiki. Both Func<> and interface factory need the factory extension.
Related
I am trying to implement DI with Castle Windsor. Currently I have a controller with overloaded constructors like this (this is an antipattern as described here: https://www.cuttingedge.it/blogs/steven/pivot/entry.php?id=97):
public class MyController : ApiController
{
protected IStorageService StorageService;
protected MyController()
{
StorageService = StorageServiceFactory.CreateStorageService(User.Identity as ClaimsIdentity);
}
protected MyController(IStorageService storageService)
{
StorageService = storageService;
}
}
I am trying to get rid of the first constructor and have Castle Windsor handle the resolution of the storage service dependency.
I created a Castle Windsor installer class like this:
public class StorageServiceInstaller : IWindsorInstaller
{
public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store)
{
container.Register(
Component.For<IStorageService>()
.UsingFactoryMethod(
() => StorageServiceFactory.CreateStorageService(User.Identity as ClaimsIdentity)));
}
}
The problem is that User (which has type IPrincipal) is a property on ApiController, so it's not accessible from the installer. How can I make this work?
Update:
#PatrickQuirk seems to be implying that there is a better way to do this using Castle Windsor without needing a factory at all.
My StorageServiceFactory looks like this:
public static class StorageServiceFactory
{
public static IStorageService CreateStorageService(ClaimsIdentity identity)
{
if (identity == null)
{
return null;
}
Claim providerKeyClaim = identity.FindFirst(ClaimTypes.NameIdentifier);
if (providerKeyClaim == null || string.IsNullOrEmpty(providerKeyClaim.Value))
{
return null;
}
StorageProviderType storageProviderType;
string storageProviderString = identity.FindFirstValue("storage_provider");
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(storageProviderString) || !Enum.TryParse(storageProviderString, out storageProviderType))
{
return null;
}
string accessToken = identity.FindFirstValue("access_token");
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(accessToken))
{
return null;
}
switch (storageProviderType)
{
// Return IStorageService implementation based on the type...
}
}
}
Is there a way to incorporate selecting the correct IStorageService into Windsor's dependency resolution and avoid the factory altogether? Or do I still need it?
I like #PatrickQuirk's solution, except that it seems odd to have to create a wrapper and corresponding wrapper interface for the factory just for the sake of dependency injection. Ideally I'd have the api controller's constructor take in an IStorageService as a parameter, which seems more intuitive/consistent with the field that actually needs to be set.
I don't think the multiple constructors is as much of a sin as the hidden dependency on StorageServiceFactory is, but I agree with your approach for the most part.
Instead of a factory method, pass a factory object into the class and have it create the storage service:
public class MyController : ApiController
{
protected IStorageService StorageService;
protected MyController(IStorageServiceFactory storageServiceFactory)
{
StorageService = storageServiceFactory.CreateStorageService(User.Identity as ClaimsIdentity);
}
}
And then define your factory interface and implementation:
public interface IStorageServiceFactory
{
IStorageService Create(ClaimsIdentity claimsIdentity);
}
public class StorageServiceFactoryImpl : IStorageServiceFactory
{
public IStorageService Create(ClaimsIdentity claimsIdentity)
{
return StorageServiceFactory.CreateStorageService(claimsIdentity);
}
}
This way, you have a single constructor and the dependency on the storage service factory is explicit.
Regarding your update:
...it seems odd to have to create a wrapper and corresponding wrapper interface for the factory just for the sake of dependency injection.
Well, that's kind of the point of dependency injection.
The wrapper I propose is solving two problems: it removes the need to call a static method from inside your class (hiding a dependency), and allows for delayed resolution (because your dependency relies on member data to be created).
If you have a way to change the dependencies of creating an IStorageService to not rely on a member of the class you're giving it to, then you could pass one in directly (provided you can tell Windsor how to create one).
I'm trying to get the following scenario using autofac but I'm not sure how my code will be built to get this up & running.
I have a repository class, this repository class needs to get a project key (string) on initialization (constructor). I want to instantiate this repository in initialization of my "Initialize" method provided to my by Web Api, because the project key will be available in my route.
so instead of calling "new ProductRepository(projectKey)", I want to use Autofac. Can someone point me in the right direction? I didn't find any way to send in specific data to the container in web api, since the container/builder is only available in the appStart.
Should I make the container available as a singleton so that I can approach it, or is this bad practice?
in your initialization code:
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterApiControllers(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
var container = builder.Build();
var resolver = new AutofacWebApiDependencyResolver(container);
config.DependencyResolver = resolver;
in your controller:
public class MyController : ApiController
{
public MyController(IComponentContext container)
{
var key = new NamedParameter("projectKey", "keyFromRoute");
var repository = container.Resolve<ProductRepository>(key);
}
}
That should do it.
There is a nuget package that provides a DependencyResolver for WebApi that integrates with AutoFac. Create the DependencyResolver, assign it to the config, register your controllers in the autofac container.
I'm making some assumptions because you didn't provide your code, but I think you have something like this:
public class ProductRepository
{
public ProductRepository(DbContext dbContext, int projectKey)
{
}
}
public class SomeController : Controller
{
private readonly Func<int, ProductRepository> _repoFactory;
public SomeController(Func<int, ProductRepository> repoFactory)
{
_repoFactory = repoFactory;
}
public void DoStuff(int projectKey)
{
var repo = _repoFactory(projectKey);
repo.DoStuff();
}
}
public class RepositoryModule : Module
{
public override Load(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
builder.RegisterType<ProductRepository>();
}
}
I am trying to understand the delegate factory pattern with Autofac. I know how to implement factory using IIndex<> with Keyed() registration, which is explained nicely in here: Configuring an Autofac delegate factory that's defined on an abstract class
I would like to know if I can create a factory using Func<>, and how would I do the registrations for the following sample:
public enum Service
{
Foo,
Bar
}
public interface FooService : IService
{
ServiceMethod();
}
public interface BarService : IService
{
ServiceMethod();
}
public class FooBarClient
{
private readonly IService service;
public FooBarClient(Func<Service, IService> service)
{
this.service = service(Service.Foo);
}
public void Process()
{
service.ServiceMethod(); // call the foo service.
}
}
Autofac cannot construct this Func<Service, IService> for you which lets you return different types based on a parameter. This is what IIndex<> is for.
However if you don't want/cannot use IIndex<> you can create this factory function with the help of the Keyed or Named and register your factory in the container:
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<FooBarClient>().AsSelf();
builder.RegisterType<FooService>().Keyed<IService>(Service.Foo);
builder.RegisterType<BarService>().Keyed<IService>(Service.Bar);
builder.Register<Func<Service, IService>>(c =>
{
var context = c.Resolve<IComponentContext>();
return s => context.ResolveKeyed<IService>(s);
});
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 want to use RavenDB with ninject in my asp.net mvc3 project, Any idea how I have to configure this?
kernel.Bind<Raven.Client.IDocumentSession>()
.To<Raven.Client.Document.DocumentStore>()
.InSingletonScope()
.WithConstructorArgument("ConnectionString", ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["RavenDB"].ConnectionString);
Here's how I do mine:
If you install Ninject with Nuget, you'll get an /App_start/ NinjectMVC3.cs file. In there:
private static void RegisterServices(IKernel kernel)
{
kernel.Load<RavenModule>();
}
Here's the RavenModule class:
public class RavenModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IDocumentStore>()
.ToMethod(InitDocStore)
.InSingletonScope();
Bind<IDocumentSession>()
.ToMethod(c => c.Kernel.Get<IDocumentStore>().OpenSession())
.InRequestScope();
}
private IDocumentStore InitDocStore(IContext context)
{
DocumentStore ds = new DocumentStore { ConnectionStringName = "Raven" };
RavenProfiler.InitializeFor(ds);
// also good to setup the glimpse plugin here
ds.Initialize();
RavenIndexes.CreateIndexes(ds);
return ds;
}
}
And for completeness here's my index creation class:
public static class RavenIndexes
{
public static void CreateIndexes(IDocumentStore docStore)
{
IndexCreation.CreateIndexes(typeof(RavenIndexes).Assembly, docStore);
}
public class SearchIndex : AbstractMultiMapIndexCreationTask<SearchIndex.Result>
{
// implementation omitted
}
}
I hope this helps!
I recommend using a custom Ninject Provider to set up your RavenDB DocumentStore. First place this in your code block that registers your Ninject services.
kernel.Bind<IDocumentStore>().ToProvider<RavenDocumentStoreProvider>().InSingletonScope();
Next, add this class that implements the Ninject Provider.
public class RavenDocumentStoreProvider : Provider<IDocumentStore>
{
var store = new DocumentStore { ConnectionName = "RavenDB" };
store.Conventions.IdentityPartsSeparator = "-"; // Nice for using IDs in routing
store.Initialize();
return store;
}
The IDocumentStore needs to be a singleton, but do not make the IDocumentSession a singleton. I recommend that you simply create a new IDocumentSession using OpenSession() on the IDocumentStore instance Ninject gives you whenever you need to interact with RavenDB. IDocumentSession objects are very lightweight, follow the unit-of-work pattern, are not thread-safe, and are meant to be used and quickly disposed where needed.
As others have done, you might also consider implementing a base MVC controller that overrides the OnActionExecuting and OnActionExecuted methods to open a session and save changes, respectively.