I'm using Ninject 1.0 and would like to be able to inject lazy initialisation delegates into constructors. So, given the generic delegate definition:
public delegate T LazyGet<T>();
I'd simply like to bind this to IKernel.Get() so that I can pass a lazy getter into constructors, e.g.
public class Foo
{
readonly LazyGet<Bar> getBar;
public Foo( LazyGet<Bar> getBar )
{
this.getBar = getBar;
}
}
However, I can't simply call Bind<LazyGet<T>>() because it's an open generic type. I need this to be an open generic so that I don't have to Bind all the different lazy gets to explicit types. In the above example, it should be possible to create a generic delegate dynamically that invokes IKernel.Get<T>().
How can this be achieved with Ninject 1.0?
Don't exactly understand the question, but could you use reflection? Something like:
// the type of T you want to use
Type bindType;
// the kernel you want to use
IKernel k;
// note - not compile tested
MethodInfo openGet = typeof(IKernel).GetMethod("Get`1");
MethodInfo constGet = openGet.MakeGenericMethod(bindType);
Type delegateType = typeof(LazyGet<>).MakeGenericType(bindType);
Delegate lazyGet = Delegate.CreateDelegate(delegateType, k, constGet);
Would using lazyGet allow you to do what you want? Note that you may have to call the Foo class by reflection as well, if bindType isn't known in the compile context.
I am fairly certain that the only way to do this (without some dirty reflection code) is to bind your delegate with type params. This will mean it needs to be done for each individual type you use. You could possibly use a BindingGenerator to do this in bulk, but it could get a bit ugly.
If there is a better solution (a clean one) I would love to hear it as I run into this problem from time to time.
From another similar question I answered:
public class Module : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind(typeof(Lazy<>)).ToMethod(ctx =>
GetType()
.GetMethod("GetLazyProvider", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic)
.MakeGenericMethod(ctx.GenericArguments[0])
.Invoke(this, new object[] { ctx.Kernel }));
}
protected Lazy<T> GetLazyProvider<T>(IKernel kernel)
{
return new Lazy<T>(() => kernel.Get<T>());
}
}
Related
I have a lot of native classes that accept some form of callbacks, usually a boost::signals2::slot-object.
But for simplicity, lets assume the class:
class Test
{
// set a callback that will be invoked at an unspecified time
// will be removed when Test class dies
void SetCallback(std::function<void(bool)> callback);
}
Now I have a managed class that wraps this native class, and I would like to pass a callback method to the native class.
public ref class TestWrapper
{
public:
TestWrapper()
: _native(new Test())
{
}
~TestWrapper()
{
delete _native;
}
private:
void CallbackMethod(bool value);
Test* _native;
};
now usually what I would do is the following:
Declare a method in the managed wrapper that is the callback I want.
Create a managed delegate object to this method.
Use GetFunctionPointerForDelegate to obtain a pointer to a function
Cast the pointer to the correct signature
Pass the pointer to the native class as callback.
I also keep the delegate alive since I fear it will be garbage collected and I will have a dangling function pointer (is this assumption correct?)
this looks kind of like this:
_managedDelegateMember = gcnew ManagedEventHandler(this, &TestWrapper::Callback);
System::IntPtr stubPointer = Marshal::GetFunctionPointerForDelegate(_managedDelegateMember);
UnmanagedEventHandlerFunctionPointer functionPointer = static_cast<UnmanagedEventHandlerFunctionPointer >(stubPointer.ToPointer());
_native->SetCallback(functionPointer);
I Would like to reduce the amount of code and not have to perform any casts nor declare any delegate types. I want to use a lambda expression with no delegate.
This is my new approach:
static void SetCallbackInternal(TestWrapper^ self)
{
gcroot<TestWrapper^> instance(self);
self->_native->SetCallback([instance](bool value)
{
// access managed class from within native code
instance->Value = value;
}
);
}
Declare a static method that accepts this in order to be able to use C++11 lambda.
Use gcroot to capture the managed class in the lambda and extend its lifetime for as long as the lambda is alive.
No casts, no additional delegate type nor members, minimal extra allocation.
Question:
Is this approach safe? I'm fearing I'm missing something and that this can cause a memory leak / undefined behavior in some unanticipated scenario.
EDIT:
this approach leads to a MethodAccessException when the lambda calls a private method of its managed wrapper class. seems like this method must at least be internal.
I think that you should not be using gcroot but a shared pointer. Shared pointer are made to keep an object alive as long as someone is using it.
You should also use a more c++ style in your whole code by replacing raw pointer with smart pointer and template instead of std::function (a lambda can be stored in a compile time type).
For example using the code you posted :
class Test
{
// set a callback that will be invoked at an unspecified time
// will be removed when Test class dies
template <class T>
void SetCallback(T callback); // Replaced std::function<void(bool)> with T
}
public ref class TestWrapper
{
public:
TestWrapper()
: _native()
{}
private:
void CallbackMethod(bool value);
std::unique_ptr<Test> _native; // Replaced Test* with std::unique_ptr<Test>
};
After replacing the old method with this new method all over my code base, I can report that it is safe, more succinct, and as far as I can tell, no memory leaks occur.
Hence I highly recommend this method for passing managed callbacks to native code.
The only caveats I found were the following:
Using lambda expressions forces the use of a static method as a helper for the callback registration. This is kinda hacky. It is unclear to me why the C++-CLI compiler does no permit lambda expressions within standard methods.
The method invoked by the lambda must be marked internal so to not throw MethodAccessException upon invocation. This is sort of make sense as it is not called within the class scope itself. but still, delegates / lambdas with C# don't have that limitation.
I am still learning the Go way of doing things, coming from a C++ background. I am looking for feedback contrasting OOP inheritance to interface composition.
I have a design situation in a Go program where, if I was implementing in C++, I would solve with an abstract base class.
Suppose I need a base class, which has many implementors. The base class has shared methods that do work on abstract data items. Different Worker implementations provide CRUD operations on different item types, but workers all use the shared methods of the base class for general work.
In C++ I might do it this way
class IItem
{
// virtual methods
};
class IWorker
{
public:
// one of many virtual functions that deal with IItem CRUD
virtual IItem* createItem() = 0;
// concrete method that works on interfaces
void doWork()
{
IItem* item = createItem();
// do stuff with an IItem*
}
};
class Toy : public IItem
{
};
// one of many kinds of workers
class ElfWorker : public IWorker
{
public:
ElfWorker()
{
// constructor implicitly calls IWorker()
}
IItem* createItem() override
{
return new Toy;
}
};
In Go you don't have abstract virtual methods such as IWorker::createItem(). Concrete classes need to supply the base with an interface or function that do the right thing.
So I think it is the case that the Go code the ew.ItemCRUD interface has to be explicitly set with a pointer to an ElfWorker.
The elf knows how to createItem(), which in his case happens to be Toy object. Other workers would implement their own ItemCRUD for their data objects.
type Item interface {
// various methods
}
type ItemCRUD interface {
create() Item
// other CRUD
}
type Worker struct {
ItemCRUD // embedded interface
}
func (w *Worker) doWork() {
item := w.create()
// do stuff with item
}
type Toy struct {
}
type ElfWorker struct {
Worker // embedded
// ..
}
func NewElfWorker() *ElfWorker {
ew := &ElfWorker{}
ew.ItemCRUD = ew // <-- #### set Worker ItemCRUD explicitly ####
return ew
}
func (ew *ElfWorker) createItem() Item {
return &Toy{}
}
// more ElfWorker Item CRUD
func bigFunction(w *Worker) {
// ...
w.doWork()
// ..
}
So the part that I am wrestling a bit with is explicit setting. Seems like the "Go way" of composition does require this explicit step if I want the base Worker class to provide shared methods on Items.
Thoughts?
Beeing new to go myself, this answer is not backed by years of go experience :-)
I don't know, if the way you tackle this is the correct approach.
go allows interfaces to be implemented without explicit declaration. If you have elves, and you need them to do ItemCRUD methods, just implement them.
The method set will then match the interface and you can use the elf as a ItemCRUD where required.
To supply any elf object with a default ItemCRUD Implementation, you should implement an adapter for the ItemCRUD and compose the adapter with your abstract elf. The abstract methods could have a default implementation as log.Fatal("not implemented")
The concrete elves shadow the adapter's methods, this answers your question: It is not required to insert the object during creation.
Yet, since go has no generics, it may not be the right approach to have an ItemCRUD.
Im not entirely clear what the plan is with the above code and without understanding that its hard to suggest specific solutions, what is clear is you are very much coming to the party with an established OOP mindset (I did too) which is rarely helpful in finding the best solution in golang.
In Golang I wouldnt usually embed an interface in an implementation, interfaces are satisfied implicitly in Golang which allows for a nice separation of expectation and implementation which should generally be respected.
A reciever method should expect an interface, the implementation passed at runtime should just satisfy the signature of that interface implicitly.
So perhaps my doWork method needs to be able to createItems then it would be the doWork method that would accept any implementation of ItemCRUD which it could call to create an item. But this is me guessing at what you really want to do here, I suspect if you just separate implementation from interface you will probably answer your own question.
I'd like to change the representation of C# Doubles to rounded Int64 with a four decimal place shift in the serialization C# Driver's stack for MongoDB. In other words, store (Double)29.99 as (Int64)299900
I'd like this to be transparent to my app. I've had a look at custom serializers but I don't want to override everything and then switch on the Type with fallback to the default, as that's a bit messy.
I can see that RegisterSerializer() won't let me add one for an existing type, and that BsonDefaultSerializationProvider has a static list of primitive serializers and it's marked as internal with private members so I can't easily subclass.
I can also see that it's possible to RepresentAs Int64 for Doubles, but this is a cast not a conversion. I need essentially a cast AND a conversion in both serialization directions.
I wish I could just give the default serializer a custom serializer to override one of it's own, but that would mean a dirty hack.
Am I missing a really easy way?
You can definitely do this, you just have to get the timing right. When the driver starts up there are no serializers registered. When it needs a serializer, it looks it up in the dictionary where it keeps track of the serializers it knows about (i.e. the ones that have been registered). Only it it can't find one in the dictionary does it start figuring out where to get one (including calling the serialization providers) and if it finds one it registers it.
The limitation in RegisterSerializer is there so that you can't replace an existing serializer that has already been used. But that doesn't mean you can't register your own if you do it early enough.
However, keep in mind that registering a serializer is a global operation, so if you register a custom serializer for double it will be used for all doubles, which could lead to unexpected results!
Anyway, you could write the custom serializer something like this:
public class CustomDoubleSerializer : BsonBaseSerializer
{
public override object Deserialize(BsonReader bsonReader, Type nominalType, Type actualType, IBsonSerializationOptions options)
{
var rep = bsonReader.ReadInt64();
return rep / 100.0;
}
public override void Serialize(BsonWriter bsonWriter, Type nominalType, object value, IBsonSerializationOptions options)
{
var rep = (long)((double)value * 100);
bsonWriter.WriteInt64(rep);
}
}
And register it like this:
BsonSerializer.RegisterSerializer(typeof(double), new CustomDoubleSerializer());
You could test it using the following class:
public class C
{
public int Id;
public double X;
}
and this code:
BsonSerializer.RegisterSerializer(typeof(double), new CustomDoubleSerializer());
var c = new C { Id = 1, X = 29.99 };
var json = c.ToJson();
Console.WriteLine(json);
var r = BsonSerializer.Deserialize<C>(json);
Console.WriteLine(r.X);
You can also use your own serialization provider to tell Mongo which serializer to use for certain types, which I ended up doing to mitigate some of the timing issues mentioned when trying to override existing serializers. Here's an example of a serialisation provider that overrides how to serialize decimals:
public class CustomSerializationProvider : IBsonSerializationProvider
{
public IBsonSerializer GetSerializer(Type type)
{
if (type == typeof(decimal)) return new DecimalSerializer(BsonType.Decimal128);
return null; // falls back to Mongo defaults
}
}
If you return null from your custom serialization provider, it will fall back to using Mongo's default serialization provider.
Once you've written your provider, you just need to register it:
BsonSerializer.RegisterSerializationProvider(new CustomSerializationProvider());
I looked through the latest iteration of the driver's code and checked if there's some sort of backdoor to set custom serializers. I am afraid there's none; you should open an issue in the project's bug tracker if you think this needs to be looked at for future iterations of the driver (https://jira.mongodb.org/).
Personally, I'd open a ticket -- and if a quick workaround is necessary or required, I'd subclass DoubleSerializer, implement the new behavior, and then use Reflection to inject it into either MongoDB.Bson.Serialization.Serializers.DoubleSerializer.__instance or MongoDB.Bson.Serialization.BsonDefaultSerializationProvider.__serializers.
I am writing an GL effect system in my application so i have a superclass called
cEffect - which handles loading/parsing configuration file for each effect
and other inherited classess
cFX<name> - for every effect i add ( blur, bloom, chaos,... ).
The code is simplified here but looks like this:
Class cEffect
{
public:
bool ParseString(...);
private:
int m_nStartFrame;
int m_nEndFrame;
float m_fSpeed;
};
// Blur effect
Class cFXBlur : public cEffect
{
public:
bool RenderFrame(...);
};
// Bloom effect
Class cFXBloom : public cEffect
{
public:
bool RenderFrame(...);
};
// Scene drawing effect
Class cFXScene : public cEffect
{
public:
bool RenderFrame(...);
};
// Clear the depth/color buffer
Class cFXClearBuffers : public cEffect
{
public
bool RenderFrame(...);
}
Now, the demo engine handles a
std::vector<cEffect *> m_pvEffects;
Vector that has a list of effects added.
And when an effect is added to the current time (let's say i add a blur)
i add it like:
// Blur to be added
cEffect *newEffect = new cFXBlur;
newEffect->SetStartTime(x);
newEffect->SetEndTime(y);
newEffect->SetPower(13.0f);
newEffect->SetTexture(...);
// Now add the effect to the effects list.
m_pvEffects.push_back(newEffect);
Now, when i render i iterate through m_pvEffects list - but also i would like to call
an RenderFrame method ( which is public in every CFX<name> effect).
(*it)->RenderFrame(...)
But compiler says:
error C2039: 'RenderFrame' : is not a member of 'CEffect'
I kinda understand why it happens but can't really think of a way how can i fix this,
can you guys help me out please - it seems like i lost the plot ...
Thanks for any suggestion, what can i do to add CFX to a cEffect vector and later
use -> RenderFrame method?
You should change your class cEffect to:
Class cEffect
{
public:
bool ParseString(...);
virtual bool RenderFrame(...) = 0;
private:
int m_nStartFrame;
int m_nEndFrame;
float m_fSpeed;
};
You need the keyword virtual, if you want to redefine a method in a subclass. The = 0 makes the class cEffect abstract (i.e. you cannot create an object directly of the type cEffect), therefore subclasses must implement the method RenderFrame(...)
The error occurs, because cEffect has no member function called RenderFrame. What you want is a virtual function, a fundamental concept of object oriented programming. Basically you need to add a function
virtual bool RenderFrame(...);
to your cEffect definition. The virtual keyword basically tells the compiler to resolve it at runtime. This means if you call this method on a cEffect pointer or a reference, the corresponding method of the concrete derived class this pointer or reference point to is called. In this case you should also declare the method as virtual in all derived classes (although this is not neccessary, it makes your code clearer).
If you do not want the base class method to do anything and you want to require all derived classes to override it with their own implementation, then you can make this method pure virtual in the base class, by decralring it like
virtual bool RenderFrame(...) = 0;
This basically tells the compiler, that this is an abstract method, which doesn't have a concrete implementation and is only implemented by derived classes.
This is a very simplified explanation (appologies to every expert who thinks my wordings not 100% exact). You should read some more material on object oriented programming, especially in conjunction with C++.
I've just modified a method for handling my DDD commands (previously it had no return type):
public static CommandResult<TReturn> Execute<TCommand, TReturn>(TCommand command)
where TCommand : IDomainCommand
{
var handler = IoCFactory.GetInstance<ICommandHandler<TCommand, TReturn>>();
return handler.Handle(command);
}
The method is fine, and does what I want it to do, however using it creates some fugly code:
CommandResult<Customer> result =
DomainCommands.Execute<CustomerCreateCommand, Customer>
(
new CustomerCreateCommand(message)
);
Before I added the Customer return type TReturn, it was nice and tidy and the method could infer the types from its usage. However that's no longer possible.
Is there any way using any new C# features that I could rewrite the above to make it tidier, i.e. using Func, Action, Expression, etc? I'm probably expecting the impossible, but I'm getting fed up of writing so much code to just call a single method that used to be very simple.
One option to reduce it slightly is to have a static generic type for the type parameter that can't be inferred, allowing you to have a generic method with just one type parameter that can be inferred:
public static class DomainCommands<TReturn>
{
public static CommandResult<TReturn> Execute<TCommand>(TCommand command)
where TCommand : IDomainCommand
{
var handler = IoCFactory.GetInstance<ICommandHandler<TCommand, TReturn>>();
return handler.Handle(command);
}
}
Then:
var result = DomainCommands<Customer>.Execute(new CustomerCreateCommand(msg));
It's not much nicer, but it's slightly better. Of course, if the domain command type itself could be generic, that might help - so CustomerCreateCommand would implement IDomainCommand<Customer> for example. If you still needed a nongeneric IDomainCommand, you could make IDomainCommand<T> derive from IDomainCommand.