Using a DI container (in this case, Ninject) is it possible - - or rather, wise to cache a frequently used object for the entire application lifetime (or at least until it is refreshed)?
To cite example, say I have a Template. There are many Template objects, but each user will inherit at least the lowest level one. This is immutable and will never change without updating everything that connects to it (so it will only change on administration demand, never based on user input). It seems foolish to keep querying the database over and over for information I know is not changed.
Would caching this be best done in my IoC container, or should I outsource it to something else?
I already store ISessionFactory (nHibernate) as a Singleton. But that's a little bit different because it doesn't include a query to the database, just the back-end to open and close ISession objects to it.
So basically I would do something like this..
static class Immutable
{
[Inject]
public IRepository<Template> TemplateRepository { get; set; }
public static ITemplate Template { get; set; }
public void Initialize()
{
if(Immutable.Template == null)
{
Immutable.Template = TemplateRepository.Retrieve(1); // obviously better logic here.
}
}
class TemplateModule : Module
{
public void Load()
{
Bind<ITemplate>().ToMethod(() => Immutable.Initialize())InSingletonScope();
}
}
Is this a poor approach? And if so, can anyone recommend a more intelligent one?
I'd generally avoid using staticness and null-checking from your code - create normal classes without singleton wiring by default and layer that aspect on top via the container. Ditto, remove reliance on property injection - ctor injection is always better unless you have no choice
i.e.:
class TemplateManager
{
readonly IRepository<Template> _templateRepository;
public TemplateManager(IRepository<Template> templateRepository)
{
_templateRepository = templateRepository;
}
public ITemplate LoadRoot()
{
return _templateRepository.Retrieve(1); // obviously better logic here.
}
}
class TemplateModule : Module
{
public void Load()
{
Bind<ITemplate>().ToMethod(() => kernel.Get<TemplateManager>().LoadRoot()).InSingletonScope();
}
}
And then I'd question whether TemplateManager should become a ninject provider or be inlined.
As for the actual question... The big question is, how and when do you want to control clearing the cache to force reloading if you decided that the caching should be at session level, not app level due to authorization influences on the template tree? In general, I'd say that should be the Concern of an actual class rather than bound into your DI wiring or hardwired into whether a class is a static class or is a Singleton (as in the design pattern, not the ninject Scope).
My tendency would be to have a TemplateManager class with no static methods, and make that a singleton class in the container. However, to get the root template, consumers should get the TemplateManager injected (via ctor injection) but then say _templateManager.GetRootTemplate() to get the template.
That way, you can:
not have a reliance on fancy ninject providers and/or tie yourself to your container
have no singleton cruft or static methods
have simple caching logic in the TemplateManager
vary the Scoping of the manager without changing all the client code
have it clear that getting the template may or may not be a simple get operation
i.e, I'd manage it like so:
class TemplateManager
{
readonly IRepository<Template> _templateRepository;
public TemplateManager(IRepository<Template> templateRepository)
{
_templateRepository = templateRepository;
}
ITemplate _cachedRootTemplate;
ITemplate FetchRootTemplate()
{
if(_cachedRootTemplate==null)
_cachedRootTemplate = LoadRootTemplate();
return _cachedRootTemplate;
}
ITemplate LoadRoot()
{
return _templateRepository.Retrieve(1); // obviously better logic here.
}
}
register it like so:
class TemplateModule : Module
{
public void Load()
{
Bind<TemplateManager>().ToSelf().InSingletonScope();
}
}
and then consume it like so:
class TemplateConsumer
{
readonly TemplateManager _templateManager;
public TemplateConsumer(TemplateManager templateManager)
{
_templateManager = templateManager;
}
void DoStuff()
{
var rootTempalte = _templateManager.FetchRootTemplate();
Wild speculation: I'd also consider not having a separate IRepository being resolvable in the container (and
presumably having all sorts of ties into units of work). Instead, I'd have the TemplateRepository be a longer-lived thing not coupled to an ORM layer and Unit Of Work. IOW having a repository and a Manager none of which do anything well defined on their own isnt a good sign - the repository should not just be a Table Data Gateway - it should be able to be the place that an Aggregate Root such as Templates gets cached and collated together. But I'd have to know lots more about your code base before slinging out stuff like that without context!
Related
Please correct me on the following scenario. ( Question is at the end)
(I asked a similar question that was un-organized and it was voted to close. So I have summarized the question here into a scope that can be replied with exact answers.)
I am developing a web application with multiple layers using nhibernate as ORM. My layer structure is as follow
Model Layer
Repository Layer
Services Layer
UI Layer
with the above layers, the classes and interfaces are placed as below.
ProductController.cs (UI Layer)
public class ProductController : Controller
{
ProductServices _ProductServices;
NHibernate.ISession _Session;
public ProductController()
{
_Session = SessionManager.GetCurrentSession();
_ProductServices = new ProductServices(
new ProductRepository(), _Session);
}
// Cont..
}
ProductServices.cs (Service Layer)
public class ProductServices : IProductServices
{
protected IProductRepository _ProductRepository;
protected NHibernate.ISession _Session;
public ProductServices(IProductRepository productRepository,
NHibernate.ISession session)
{
_ProductRepository = productRepository;
_Session = session;
_ProductRepository.SetSession(_Session);
}
// cont...
}
ProductRepository.cs (Repository Layer)
public class ProductRepository : IProductRepository
{
NHibernate.ISession _Session;
public void SetSession(NHibernate.ISession session)
{
_Session = session;
}
public IEnumerable<Product> FindAll()
{
return _Session.CreateCriteria<Product>().List<Product>();
}
//cont..
}
From the UI layer, I create the session as request per session and inject into service layer with the help of class constructor. Then set the session of repository with a help of a method.
I am afraid if I pass the _Session directly to repository as constructor, I will not have the control over it under the service layer. Also there is a future extension plan for using a webservice layer.
** Is there a way to ensure in each method of ProductRepository class that _Session is set already, without writing the piece of code if(_Session==null) in each and every method as it is repeating the same code.
** If the above pattern is wrong, Please show me a right way to achieve this goal.
What you are doing amazed me a bit. You applying the constructor injection pattern in the ProductService, which is definitely the way to go. On the other hand you are not injecting the dependencies into the ProductController, but that class is requesting one of those dependencies through a static class (this is the Service Locator anti-pattern) and creates a ProductServices class itself. This makes this class hard to test and makes your application less flexible and maintainable, since you can't easily change, decorate or intercept the use of the ProductServices class, when it's been used in multiple places.
And although you are (correctly) using constructor injection for the dependencies in the ProductServices, you are passing those dependencies on to the product repository, instead of applying the constructor injection pattern on the ProductResopistory as well.
Please show me a right way to achieve this goal.
The right way is to apply the constructor injection pattern everywhere. When you do this, your code will start to look like this:
public class ProductController : Controller
{
private ProductServices _ProductServices;
public ProductController(ProductServices services)
{
_ProductServices = services;
}
// Cont..
}
public class ProductServices : IProductServices
{
private IProductRepository _ProductRepository;
public ProductServices(
IProductRepository productRepository)
{
_ProductRepository = productRepository;
}
// cont...
}
public class ProductRepository : IProductRepository
{
private ISession _Session;
public ProductRepository (ISession session)
{
_Session = session;
}
public IEnumerable<Product> FindAll()
{
return _Session
.CreateCriteria<Product>().List<Product>();
}
//cont..
}
See how each class only takes in dependencies that it uses itself. So the ProductController and ProductServices don't depend on ISession (I made the assumption that only ProductRepoistory needs ISession). See how -from a class's perspective- everything is much simpler now?
Did we actually solve a problem here? It seems like we just moved the problem of wiring all classes together up the dependency graph. Yes we did move the problem. And this is a good thing. Now each class can be tested in isolation, is easier to follow, and the application as a whole is more maintainable.
Somewhere in the application however, a ProductController must be created. This could look like this:
new ProductController(
new ProductServices(
new ProductRepository(
SessionManager.GetCurrentSession())));
In its normal configuration, ASP.NET MVC will create controller classes for you, and it needs a default constructor to do so. If you want to wire up controllers using constructor injection (which you should definitely do), you need to do something 'special' to get this to work.
ASP.NET MVC allows you to override the default ControllerFactory class. This allows you to decide how to create controller instances. However, when your application starts to grow, it will get really awkward very quickly when you are creating your dependency graphs by hand (as my last example shows). In this case, it would be much better to use a Dependency Injection framework. Most of them contain a feature / package that allows you to integrate it with ASP.NET MVC and automatically allows to use constructor injection on your MVC controllers.
Are we done yet? Well... are we ever? There's one thing in your design that triggered a flag in my brain. Your system contains a class named ProductServices. Although a wild guess, the name Services seems like you wrapped all product related business operations inside that class. Depending on the size of your system, the number of people on your team, and the amount of changes you need to make, this might get problematic. For instance, how to you effectively apply cross-cutting concerns (such as logging, validation, profiling, transaction management, fault tolerance improvements) in such way that to system stays maintainable?
So instead of wrapping all operations in a single ProductServices class, try giving each business transaction / use case its own class and apply the same (generic) interface to all those classes. This description might be a bit vague, but it is a great way to improve the maintainability of small and big systems. You can read more about that here.
You can use a dependency injection container such as Autofac to instantiate your session and manage the lifetime of it. Leave the responsibility of instantiating the session to Autofac and simply inject the ISession interface into any classes that require the dependency. Have a look at this post: Managing NHibernate ISession with Autofac
You will also find this wiki page useful about configuring Autofac with MVC3: http://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/MvcIntegration3
Entity Framework 4, Ninject 3, MVC3
Currently in my web app i have been using a rather rudimentary approach to per request instantiation of an Object Context. So I am experimenting with Ninject, and some old sample code, but I am unsure how to proceed with the following..
Effectively I want to be able in the controller to do the equivalent of: DB_Entities.Current.Albums ... Should i be instantiating a StandardKernel every time?
The sample i was looking at was using the following: MvcApplication.Container.Get(); but in Ninject 3 with the App_Start hookup I dont have access to Container..
My attempt to replicate the above line, is failing at runtime.
using MusicStoreEntities;
using Ninject;
using TestMVC3WithIOC.App_Start;
using System.Data.Objects;
namespace TestMVC3WithIOC.Models
{
public partial class MusicStoreEntities
{
public static MusicStoreEntities Current
{
get
{
using (IKernel kernel = new StandardKernel())
{
return (MusicStoreEntities)kernel.Get<ObjectContext>();
}
}
}
}
}
Also, note, that in App_Start\NinjectWebCommon.cs I have the following modification:
private static void RegisterServices(IKernel kernel)
{
kernel.Bind<ILogger>().To<NLogger>();
kernel.Bind<ObjectContext>().To<MusicStoreEntities>().InRequestScope();
}
Although a workable solution, it seems ill-advised to pass the entire Kernel into a class, because it tends to obscure the classes actual, specific dependencies. A better approach is to pass a factory dependency into your controller's constructor.
public partial class MusicStoreEntities
{
private readonly IEntitiesFactory _factory;
public MusicStoreEntities(IEntitiesFactory factory)
{
_factory = factory;
}
}
IEntitiesFactory has a simple implementation with a single method GetObjectContext().
(I believe also the "Unit of Work" pattern is popular at the moment, but I can't really speak to that as I haven't used it. Maybe worth looking into.)
I am using MVC3, Entity Framework v4.3 Code First, and SimpleInjector. I have several simple classes that look like this:
public class SomeThing
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
I have another entity that looks like this:
public class MainClass
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual AThing AThingy { get; set; }
public virtual BThing BThingy { get; set; }
public virtual CThing CThingy { get; set; }
public virtual DThing DThingy { get; set; }
public virtual EThing EThingy { get; set; }
}
Each Thingy (currently) has its own Manager class, like so:
public class SomeThingManager
{
private readonly IMyRepository<SomeThing> MyRepository;
public SomeThingManager(IMyRepository<SomeThing> myRepository)
{
MyRepository = myRepository;
}
}
My MainController consequently follows:
public class MainController
{
private readonly IMainManager MainManager;
private readonly IAThingManager AThingManager;
private readonly IBThingManager BThingManager;
private readonly ICThingManager CThingManager;
private readonly IDThingManager DThingManager;
private readonly IEThingManager EThingManager;
public MainController(IMainManager mainManager, IAThingManager aThingManager, IBThingManager bThingManager, ICThingManager cThingManager, IDThingManager dThingManager, IEThingManager eThingManager)
{
MainManager = mainManager;
AThingManager = aThingManager;
BThingManager = bThingManager;
CThingManager = cThingManager;
DThingManager = dThingManager;
EThingManager = eThingManager;
}
...various ActionMethods...
}
In reality, there are twice as many injected dependencies in this controller. It smells. The smell is worse when you also know that there is an OtherController with all or most of the same dependencies. I want to refactor it.
I already know enough about DI to know that property injection and service locator are not good ideas.
I can not split my MainController, because it is a single screen that requires all these things be displayed and editable with the click of a single Save button. In other words, a single post action method saves everything (though I'm open to changing that if it makes sense, as long as it's still a single Save button). This screen is built with Knockoutjs and saves with Ajax posts if that makes a difference.
I humored the use of an Ambient Context, but I'm not positive it's the right way to go.
I humored the use of injecting a Facade as well.
I'm also wondering if I should implement a Command architecture at this point.
(Don't all of the above just move the smell somewhere else?)
Lastly, and perhaps independent of the three above approaches, is should I instead have a single, say, LookupManager with explicit methods like GetAThings(), GetAThing(id), GetBThings(), GetBThing(id), and so on? (But then that LookupManager would need several repositories injected into it, or a new type of repository.)
My musings aside, my question is, to reiterate: what's a good way to refactor this code to reduce the crazy number of injected dependencies?
Using a command architecture is a good idea, since this moves all business logic out of the controller, and allows you to add cross-cutting concerns without changes to the code. However, this will not fix your problem of constructor over-injection. The standard solution is to move related dependencies into a aggregate service. However, I do agree with Mark that you should take a look at the unit of work pattern.
Have you considered using a unit of work design pattern? There is a great MSDN post on what a unit of work is. An excerpt from that article:
In a way, you can think of the Unit of Work as a place to dump all
transaction-handling code. The responsibilities of the Unit of Work
are to:
Manage transactions.
Order the database inserts, deletes, and updates.
Prevent duplicate updates. Inside a single usage of a Unit of Work object, different parts of the code may mark the same Invoice
object as changed, but the Unit of Work class will only issue a
single UPDATE command to the database.
The value of using a Unit of Work pattern is to free the rest of your
code from these concerns so that you can otherwise concentrate on
business logic.
There are several blog posts about this, but the best one I've found is on how to implement it is here. There are some other ones which have been referred to from this site here, and here.
Lastly, and perhaps independent of the three above approaches, is
should I instead have a single, say, LookupManager with explicit
methods like GetAThings(), GetAThing(id), GetBThings(), GetBThing(id),
and so on? (But then that LookupManager would need several
repositories injected into it, or a new type of repository.)
The unit of work would be able to handle all of these, especially if you're able to implement a generic repository for most of your database handling needs. Your tag mentions you're using Entity Framework 4.3 right?
Hope this helps!
I think your main issue is too many layers of abstraction. You are using Entity Framework, so you already have a layer of abstraction around you data, adding two more layers (one per entity) via a Repository and a Manager interface has led to the large number of interfaces your controller depends upon. It doesn't add a whole lot of value, and besides, YAGNI.
I would refactor, getting rid of your repository and manager layers, and use an 'ambient context'.
Then, look at the kinds of queries your controller is asking of the manager layers. Where these are very simple, I see no problems querying your 'ambient context' directly in your controller - this is what I would do. Where they are more complicated, refactor this into a new interface, grouping things logically (not necessarily one per Entity) and use your IOC for this.
I have the following code:
public abstract class BaseController : Controller
{
public IUserService UserService { get; set; }
}
All my controllers inherit from this base controller. I started out by configuring it in Ninject using the following code:
kernel.Bind<BaseController>()
.ToSelf()
.WithPropertyValue("UserService", x => x.Kernel.GetService(typeof(IUserService)));
This did not work. I assume it is because of the fact that the BaseController is an abstract class (please confirm my assumption). So I moved on to modify the configuration to:
kernel.Bind<HomeController>()
.ToSelf()
.WithPropertyValue("UserService", x => x.Kernel.GetService(typeof(IUserService)));
This does work. The minor downside is that I now have to configure every controller the same way.
Since I also have DependencyResolver setup in my ASP.NET MVC 3 project I could also remove the above Ninject configuration and modify my base controller to look like:
public IUserService UserService
{
get
{
return DependencyResolver.Current.GetService<IUserService>();
}
}
Is there any benefit to using the fluent configuration as opposed to using the DependencyResolver approach? Is one better than the other? Which approach would be considered a better practice?
It is worth mentioning that I did not want to do constructor injection in my base controller.
A better practice in MVC it is to use constructor injection over property injection. Why did you make your choice like this ?
Using Constructor Injection you states that all dependencies in constructor are necessary for the class to do its job.
Property injection means that the dependencies are optional or that there are the local defaults implementations, so all will work even if you don't provide necessary implementations yourself.
You should really know what you're doing using Property injection or you have no other choice, so the safer approach is to rely on constructor injection.
Now I'll give you my point of view. Other may have other opinions.
DependencyResolver was introduced in MVC 3 for "convenient" service location but for me it's a regular Service locator which for me is also an anti-pattern http://blog.ploeh.dk/2010/02/03/ServiceLocatorIsAnAntiPattern.aspx. I don't use it because I don't like it and there is no benefit in using it.
I prefer to user my controller factory like before and pass the dependencies through constructor.
More the IDependencyResolver has somme issues with some IoC containers (I don't know if it's the case with Ninject). You can read more here : http://mikehadlow.blogspot.com/2011/02/mvc-30-idependencyresolver-interface-is.html
If you need the same dependency in each controller then there seems to be something wrong in your design. Most likely you are handling some kind of cross cutting concern in your base controller. In this case Doing property injection is just treating sympthoms instead of cureing the disease. This should rather be handled by an aspect (e.g. a filter or an interceptor) so that you do not have to pollute your controller with something that does not belong there.
There are many ways to skin the cat they say. You could use conventions-based bindings with .WithPropertyValue() or with .OnActivaction() (as described here).
public class ControllerModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
// Get all controller types derived from the base controller.
IEnumerable<Type> controllerTypes = // ...
foreach (var controllerType in controllerTypes)
{
Bind(controllerType).ToSelf().InRequestScope()
.WithPropertyValue(...);
}
}
}
You could create your own custom implementation of the IInjectionHeuristic interface as described here or your own custom implementation of the IControllerActivator interface.
public class CustomNinjectControllerActivator : IControllerActivator
{
private readonly IKernel kernel;
public CustomNinjectControllerActivator(IKernel kernel)
{
this.kernel = kernel;
}
public IController Create(RequestContext context, Type controllerType)
{
var baseController = kernel.TryGet(controllerType) as BaseController;
if (baseController == null)
{
return null;
}
baseController.UserService = kernel.Get<IUserService>();
return baseController;
}
}
Heck, you could even use the service locator pattern if you are comfortable using it.
public IUserService UserService
{
get { return DependencyResolver.Current.GetService<IUserService>(); }
}
You should choose whichever solution is easiest to implement, test and maintain, and of course provides the desired behavior.
I find myself very often creating an object that has no public methods and is self-contained. It typically handles events of arguments passed to its constructor in its private methods and does not raise any events or expose any public methods.
I am calling this type of objects "passive" objects - objects that do not have any public methods defined. All interaction occurs inside them in private methods and events of arguments passed in constructor.
Typically it is some utility class, like one that assures that two forms will be sticked together:
public class StickyForm : IDisposable
{
private readonly Form form;
private readonly Form parentForm;
public StickyForm(Form form, Form parentForm)
{
this.form = form;
this.form.StartPosition = FormStartPosition.Manual;
this.parentForm = parentForm;
this.parentForm.LocationChanged += new EventHandler(parent_LocationChanged);
this.parentForm.SizeChanged += new EventHandler(parent_SizeChanged);
SetLocation();
}
void parent_SizeChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
SetLocation();
}
void parent_LocationChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
SetLocation();
}
private void SetLocation()
{
//compute location of form based on parent form
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.parentForm.SizeChanged -= parent_SizeChanged;
this.parentForm.LocationChanged -= parent_LocationChanged;
}
}
But sometimes it is also some kind of controller, providing interaction between two views:
public class BrowseController
{
private IBrowserView view;
private IFolderBrowser folderBrowser;
public BrowseController(IFolderBrowser folderBrowser, IBrowserView view)
{
this.view = view;
this.folderBrowser = folderBrowser;
this.folderBrowser.NodeOpened += folderBrowser_NodeOpened;
}
private void folderBrowser_NodeOpened(object sender, Core.Util.TEventArgs<IPictureList> e)
{
this.Browse(e.Value);
}
public void Browse(IPictureList content)
{
//stripped some code
AddItemsToView(content);
}
private void AddItemsToView(IPictureList browser)
{
//call methods on view
}
}
Are such "passive" objects considered a good design practice?
Is there a better name for this kind of class?
Seems like fine design to me. I'm not sure about the name passive though. Those classes do seem pretty active. They react to events and do stuff. I would think a class is more passive if you have to call methods on it to get it to do stuff, but normally it wouldn't do anything unless poked.
How about the name "controller". "controller" is the more usual name for a class used in a UI that causes interaction between a view and data, and they quite often don't need to have public methods.
I'm sure there's other ideas for names.
I don't see anything wrong with that. If it results in clean, readable code, go for it!
I wouldn't call the objects that react to notifications and update their state completely passive.
One other thought, if the objects simply adjust their state to reflect changes in the outside world without providing much of their own, you may slice their "functionality" and put it into other more active "components". There may be not enough reason for these objects to exist.
If this organization however makes you code structure better, clearer and more maintainable, then use it and don't worry about it.
I think that there's one important criteria to meet with this design: can you test it? The designs you have seem to be testable, but you may have to be careful as I can see this leading to some rather untestable code.
In regards to the name, I think this may be an example of the Mediator pattern.
Conceptually this appears to be an implementation of strategy pattern. Although in this particular case the reasoning is different from strategy pattern', it still yields very readable and nicely granulated code. Go for it.
UPDATE: to make a little clearer what I mean consider two (or more) classes derived from StickyForm
public class VeryStickyForm : StickyForm
{
//some implementation here
//but interface is completely inherited from StickyForm
}
public class SomewhatStickyForm : StickyForm
{
//some implementation here
//but interface is completely inherited from StickyForm
}
And you decide which one to use dynamically depending on run-time state... you implement a strategy.
As I said your solution is conceptually similar to strategy: you select some behavioral aspect of your application that can be well abstracted into policy and move the implementation of the policy into separate class, that does not know about the rest of the application, and your application does not know much about guts of the policy. Even though you do not use it polymorphically, resemblance to strategy is clear.