MVC 3 And MEF and adding plug-ins to main application - asp.net-mvc-3

I am a newbie to MEF and I am really mixed up! There are lot of useful articles out there and neat question and answers here in stackoverflow. I downloaded the example which #matthew-abbott has uploaded in his blog , but I dont know how to add new plug-ins or extension to extend the main web application, I mean like what you can see here.
Edited :
Also I use Entity Framework, Code First Approach and Unit of work for my data access layer application, what If my plug-ins needs data access and (I mean the plug-in has itself models) wants to use the DAL I created ? As you know every time the model changes, DbContext throws and error and tells re-create DB, Is there any way or other ORM which accepts extending DAL dynamically?

That particular example shows how we can integrate MEF with MVC3's new DependencyResolver which provides a service location mechanism for various extension points within the MVC architecture. There are a few other articles on my blog which detail more information about how a possible plugin architecture could work, these are available at:
Modular ASP.NET MVC using the Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF), Part One
Modular ASP.NET MVC using the Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF), Part Two
Modular ASP.NET MVC using the Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF), Part Three
There are also a host of fantastic articles, my recommendations would be to also read:
ASP.NET MVC and the Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF) by Maarten Balliauw
Defining Web-scoped parts with MEF by Tim Roberts
MVC is a very flexible architecture, there are a myriad of ways it can be extended, but because of the nature of how ASP.NET applications run in IIS, you need to consider part lifetime very carefully. As an example, controllers can only be used for one request, so you could would need to ensure that your controllers have a specific CreationPolicy. Tim Robert's article on Web-scoped parts is a particularly good read.
Hope that is enough to point you in the right direction.
Edit: Because of the modular nature that MEF provides, it is important to ensure that your different layers are decoupled. You've specified that you are using Entity Framework, but the reality is, EF should likely only be used in your data layer. Typically the MVC architecture would promote view models over domain models. To that end, it is probably useful to use something similar to the repository pattern to define, e.g. here is a mock UserRepository:
[Export(typeof(IUserRepository))]
public class UserRepository : IUserRepository
{
public IEnumerable<UserViewModel> GetUsers()
{
// Get values here from EF as domain models
// And return them as view models?
}
}
Which we can export and inject into a controller:
[ExportController("User"), PartCreationPolicy(CreationPolicy.NonShared)]
public class UserController : Controller
{
private readonly IUserRepository _repo;
[ImportingConstructor]
public UserController(IUserRepository repo)
{
if (repo == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("repo");
_repo = repo;
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
var users = _repo.GetUsers();
return View(users);
}
}
This is just a really simple example, but like many IoC containers, MEF also supports dependency injection. As long as a part provides a suitable export, it can be imported (either through property injection, or constructor injection) into another part at composition time.
My recommendation would be against exposing EF to your views, as this makes them explicitly dependent on it. By taking care to decouple and only expose the right types at the right layers, you architecture will become a lot more robust, flexible and testable, which makes maintaining it, and updating it a lot easier. As another quick example, here is how we could test our controller:
[Test]
public void UserController_CreatesViewResult_WithListOfUsers()
{
var mock = new Mock<IUserRepository>();
mock.Setup(m => m.GetUsers()).Returns(new[] { new UserViewModel { Name = "Matt" } });
var controller = new UserController(mock.Object);
var result = controller.Index();
Assert.That(result is ViewResult);
// Other assertions.
}
Because I haven't tightly coupled EF to my view, my controller is a lot more testable, I can mock a suitable repository and test where I need to.
The important thing is planning your architecture.

Related

How to use controllers and views in another project in ASP.NET Core

If I have set up a project with lots of controllers and views, how could I use them in another project in ASP.NET Core? I tried refering the project but when I use the views in previous project it just return NOT FOUND.
While it is reasonable to create your own ControllerFactory, I found it more convenient to define all my Controllers in each project, but derive them from Controllers in my Shared project:
namespace MyProject1.Controllers
{
public class MyController : MySharedProject.Controllers.MyController
{
// nothing much to do here...
}
}
namespace MySharedProject.Controllers
{
public abstract class MyController : Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Controller
{
// all (or most) of my controller logic here...
}
}
This has the added benefit that you have a place to put your Controller logic that differs from project to project. Also, it is easier for other developers to quickly find your Controller logic because the Controllers exist in the standard place.
Regarding whether this is advisable, I think it absolutely is. I've created some common Account Management logic that I want to share between projects that otherwise have very different business logic. So I'm sharing my Account and Admin Controllers, but the other Controllers are specific to their respective projects.

What is alternate for CreatePerOwinContext in .net core 2.1

I had a webapi in which I was using app.CreatePerOwinContext in startup.cs file but I want to migrate that webapi to .net core 2.1. So I have stuck at this point as I can't fine any alternate for CreatePerOwinContext.
Here is my webapi code:
public static UserManager<IdentityUser> Create(IdentityFactoryOptions<UserManager<IdentityUser>> options, IOwinContext context)
{
var manager = new UserManager<IdentityUser>(new UserStore());
return manager;
}
public void ConfigureAuth(IAppBuilder app)
{
app.CreatePerOwinContext<UserManager<IdentityUser>>(Create);
...
}
So how can I convert the above code in .net core 2.1?
That method was used as a service locator to load up dependencies and then access them throughout your code. Service location on its own is considered an anti-pattern, and is not recommended for use in the vast majority of real world situations.
Instead, people use IOC containers now to manage their dependency injection. In ASP.NET MVC Core, there's now a lightweight and "good enough" IOC container provided for you as part of the framework.
Microsoft provides an overview in this article, but the short version is that in your Startup.cs you register your dependency tree under ConfigureServices (usually using an extension method so Startup.cs doesn't get too large).
After you've registered your dependencies, you load them either through property injection, constructor injection, or method parameter injection. This results in cleaner code that is more maintainable than standard service location.
Edit:
If you truly insist on managing a service locator either because the technical debt is acceptable or because the business case warrants the current design, then I suggest you transition your work from OwinContext over to HttpContext.
In ASP.NET Core, you access the HttpContext by injecting the HttpContextAccessor into your class, and changing your OwinContext calls to pull from the key value store in HttpContext.
Instructions for injecting HttpContextAccessor can be found in this SO answer. Simply store KVPs using HttpContext.Current.Application["myObject"].
I don't recommend doing this, but I'm willing to share it because I understand the reality of deadlines vs the idealism of architecture.

Architecture and Microsoft.AspNet.Providers

I have been Googling for hours and cant find an article that is exactly related to what I need.
I have a MVC4 site with the following layers:
Presentation layer (MVC4)
Business Layer
Data layer
I want to use the following provider:(installed using NuGet)
Install-Package Microsoft.AspNet.Providers
My question is more of an architectural one.
In my mind, I should install this (Microsoft.AspNet.Providers) in my data layer as it is code that talks to a membership database.
All the posts I can find, however, even by Hanselman just install it in the Presentation layer / MVC4.
I am very big on separation of concerns and am using dependency injection throughout my application.
Obviously I need the config for the provider in my web.config but want all the membership code in my data layer.
Any thoughts?
thanks
RuSs
PS. Would love to know the process of installing this in a data / repository layer using nuget. Slightly confused as to what DLLs Nuget is installing. If I install in my data layer, nuget doesnt update the MVC web.config.
The answer is quite simple actually: You should hide the providers behind an abstraction that you define in your business layer. This way you can write an adapter that implements this abstraction an wraps the provider and you can inject this adapter into your business layer using dependency injection. This way you will only have to reference the Microsoft.AspNet.Providers from your MVC4 project, and prevent any code from directly referencing the AspNet.Providers, which allows you to switch more easily later on.
Example:
// Define in business layer
public interface IAuthorizationService
{
bool bool IsCurrentUserInRole(string role);
}
public class SomeBusinessLayerCommand
{
private IAuthorizationService authorizer;
public SomeBusinessLayerCommand(
IAuthorizationService authorizer)
{
this.authorizer = authorizer;
}
public void SomeOperation()
{
if (this.authorizer.UserIsInRole("Admins"))
{
// some secret admin stuf
}
else
{
// some normal user stuf
}
}
}
And in your Presentation Layer you can define an adapter:
public class MembershipAdapter : IAuthorizationService
{
public bool IsCurrentUserInRole(string role)
{
return Roles.IsUserInRole(role);
}
}
And you can map IAuthorizationService to MembershipAdapter using your favorite DI container.

When Using the Service Layer Pattern, Is there a Folder Layout Convention for a Visual Studio 2010 Solution?

I want to use the Service Layer patter (as described on Martin Fowler's site here) for my ASP.NET MVC 3 application.
My goal is to setup the solution structure in a way for me to more easily learn the pattern by setting up the proper framework for it prior to digging into the code.
Can anyone show me the conventional way to layout the solution, projects, and folders within a Visual Studio 2010 Solution?
There are many ways to implement this. Either segment the service layer into a separate assembly or it could be in the same assembly as the ASP.NET MVC application (for example in a Services folder). There is really no rule for that. It will depend on the level of reusability you are expecting from this layer and the size of your project. What is important though is to abstract this service layer:
public interface IMyService
{
... some service methods
}
and then have your controllers work only with this abstraction:
public class MyController: Controller
{
private readonly IMyService _service;
public MyController(IMyService service)
{
_service = service;
}
public ActionResult MyAction()
{
... call some methods on the service layer
}
}
Then to wire up the concrete implementation you would configure your dependency injection framework.

ASP.NET MVC Views Dependency Injection without DependencyResolver?

Is it possible to inject dependencies into an MVC ViewPage (must support layout pages) without using DependencyResolver?
I would rather not use DependencyResolver at all (I had major problems when injecting NH sessions into ActionFilters in the past (leaking all over the place)). However, I'm not sure if there is an alternative?
The other complexity I have is that the DependencyResolver needs to be tenant aware (each tenant has its own (StructureMap) container). I'm currently doing this by passing in a lazy instance of my tenant container resolver (seems this is necessary otherwise the resolver is cached):
public SmDependencyResolver(Func<ISiteContainerResolver> containerResolver)
{
this.containerResolver = containerResolver;
}
public object GetService(Type serviceType)
{
var container = containerResolver().Resolve();
If I end up using DependencyResolver should I ditch my StructureMap controller factory since it looks like DependencyResolver handles this too?
Thanks
Ben
Given that the DependencyResolver is used by so many aspects of the ASP.NET MVC framework for dependency injection your life will be easier if you use it - as you say it means you don't need your own versions of things like the controller factory.
That said, the framework is very flexible and it is always open for you to plug in your own version of things - I just prefer to create as little of my own code as possible on the KISS principle.

Resources