Search Results

Search found 1231 results on 50 pages for 'ioc containers'.

Page 1/50 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Dependency Injection/IoC container practices when writing frameworks

  - by Dave Hillier

  I've used various IoC containers (Castle.Windsor, Autofac, MEF, etc) for .Net in a number of projects. I have found they tend to encourage a number of bad practices. Are there any established practices for IoC container use, particularly when providing a platform/framework? My aim as a framework writer is to make code as simple and as easy to use as possible. I'd rather write one line of code to construct an object than ten or even just two. For example, a couple of code smells that I've noticed and don't have good suggestions to: Large number of parameters (5) for constructors. Creating services tends to be complex; all of the dependencies are injected via the constructor - despite the fact that the components are rarely optional (except for maybe in testing). Lack of private and internal classes; this one may be a specific limitation of using C# and Silverlight, but I'm interested in how it is solved. It's difficult to tell what a frameworks interface is if all the classes are public; it allows me access to private parts that I probably shouldnt touch. Coupling the object lifecycle to the IoC container. It is often difficult to manually construct the dependencies required to create objects. Object lifecycle is too often managed by the IoC framework. I've seen projects where most classes are registered as Singletons. You get a lack of explicit control and are also forced to manage the internals (it relates to the above point, all classes are public and you have to inject them). For example, .Net framework has many static methods. such as, DateTime.UtcNow. Many times I have seen this wrapped and injected as a construction parameter. Depending on concrete implementation makes my code hard to test. Injecting a dependency makes my code hard to use - particularly if the class has many parameters. How do I provide both a testable interface, as well as one that is easy to use? What are the best practices?

  Read the article

• Linux-Containers — Part 1: Overview

  - by Lenz Grimmer

  "Containers" by Jean-Pierre Martineau (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0). Linux Containers (LXC) provide a means to isolate individual services or applications as well as of a complete Linux operating system from other services running on the same host. To accomplish this, each container gets its own directory structure, network devices, IP addresses and process table. The processes running in other containers or the host system are not visible from inside a container. Additionally, Linux Containers allow for fine granular control of resources like RAM, CPU or disk I/O. Generally speaking, Linux Containers use a completely different approach than "classicial" virtualization technologies like KVM or Xen (on which Oracle VM Server for x86 is based on). An application running inside a container will be executed directly on the operating system kernel of the host system, shielded from all other running processes in a sandbox-like environment. This allows a very direct and fair distribution of CPU and I/O-resources. Linux containers can offer the best possible performance and several possibilities for managing and sharing the resources available. Similar to Containers (or Zones) on Oracle Solaris or FreeBSD jails, the same kernel version runs on the host as well as in the containers; it is not possible to run different Linux kernel versions or other operating systems like Microsoft Windows or Oracle Solaris for x86 inside a container. However, it is possible to run different Linux distribution versions (e.g. Fedora Linux in a container on top of an Oracle Linux host), provided it supports the version of the Linux kernel that runs on the host. This approach has one caveat, though - if any of the containers causes a kernel crash, it will bring down all other containers (and the host system) as well. For example, Oracle's Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel Release 2 (2.6.39) is supported for both Oracle Linux 5 and 6. This makes it possible to run Oracle Linux 5 and 6 container instances on top of an Oracle Linux 6 system. Since Linux Containers are fully implemented on the OS level (the Linux kernel), they can be easily combined with other virtualization technologies. It's certainly possible to set up Linux containers within a virtualized Linux instance that runs inside Oracle VM Server for Oracle VM Virtualbox. Some use cases for Linux Containers include: Consolidation of multiple separate Linux systems on one server: instances of Linux systems that are not performance-critical or only see sporadic use (e.g. a fax or print server or intranet services) do not necessarily need a dedicated server for their operations. These can easily be consolidated to run inside containers on a single server, to preserve energy and rack space. Running multiple instances of an application in parallel, e.g. for different users or customers. Each user receives his "own" application instance, with a defined level of service/performance. This prevents that one user's application could hog the entire system and ensures, that each user only has access to his own data set. It also helps to save main memory — if multiple instances of a same process are running, the Linux kernel can share memory pages that are identical and unchanged across all application instances. This also applies to shared libraries that applications may use, they are generally held in memory once and mapped to multiple processes. Quickly creating sandbox environments for development and testing purposes: containers that have been created and configured once can be archived as templates and can be duplicated (cloned) instantly on demand. After finishing the activity, the clone can safely be discarded. This allows to provide repeatable software builds and test environments, because the system will always be reset to its initial state for each run. Linux Containers also boot significantly faster than "classic" virtual machines, which can save a lot of time when running frequent build or test runs on applications. Safe execution of an individual application: if an application running inside a container has been compromised because of a security vulnerability, the host system and other containers remain unaffected. The potential damage can be minimized, analyzed and resolved directly from the host system. Note: Linux Containers on Oracle Linux 6 with the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel Release 2 (2.6.39) are still marked as Technology Preview - their use is only recommended for testing and evaluation purposes. The Open-Source project "Linux Containers" (LXC) is driving the development of the technology behind this, which is based on the "Control Groups" (CGroups) and "Name Spaces" functionality of the Linux kernel. Oracle is actively involved in the Linux Containers development and contributes patches to the upstream LXC code base. Control Groups provide means to manage and monitor the allocation of resources for individual processes or process groups. Among other things, you can restrict the maximum amount of memory, CPU cycles as well as the disk and network throughput (in MB/s or IOP/s) that are available for an application. Name Spaces help to isolate process groups from each other, e.g. the visibility of other running processes or the exclusive access to a network device. It's also possible to restrict a process group's access and visibility of the entire file system hierarchy (similar to a classic "chroot" environment). CGroups and Name Spaces provide the foundation on which Linux containers are based on, but they can actually be used independently as well. A more detailed description of how Linux Containers can be created and managed on Oracle Linux will be explained in the second part of this article. Additional links related to Linux Containers: OTN Article: The Role of Oracle Solaris Zones and Linux Containers in a Virtualization Strategy Linux Containers on Wikipedia - Lenz Grimmer Follow me on: Personal Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Linux Blog |

  Read the article

• IOC - Should util classes with static helper methods be wired up with IOC?

  - by Greg

  Hi, Just trying to still get my head around IOC principles. Q1: Static Methods - Should util classes with static helper methods be wired up with IOC? For example if I have a HttpUtils class with a number of static methods, should I be trying to pass it to other business logic classes via IOC? Follow on questions for this might be: Q2: Singletons - What about things like logging where you may typically get access to it via a Logger.getInstance() type call. Would you normally leave this as is, and NOT use IOC for injecting the logger into business classes that need it? Q3: Static Classes - I haven't really used this concept, but are there any guidelines for how you'd typically handle this if you were moving to an IOC based approach. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Acceptable placement of the composition root using dependency injection and inversion of control containers

  - by Lumirris

  I've read in several sources including Mark Seemann's 'Ploeh' blog about how the appropriate placement of the composition root of an IoC container is as close as possible to the entry point of an application. In the .NET world, these applications seem to be commonly thought of as Web projects, WPF projects, console applications, things with a typical UI (read: not library projects). Is it really going against this sage advice to place the composition root at the entry point of a library project, when it represents the logical entry point of a group of library projects, and the client of a project group such as this is someone else's work, whose author can't or won't add the composition root to their project (a UI project or yet another library project, even)? I'm familiar with Ninject as an IoC container implementation, but I imagine many others work the same way in that they can scan for a module containing all the necessary binding configurations. This means I could put a binding module in its own library project to compile with my main library project's output, and if the client wanted to change the configuration (an unlikely scenario in my case), they could drop in a replacement dll to replace the library with the binding module. This seems to avoid the most common clients having to deal with dependency injection and composition roots at all, and would make for the cleanest API for the library project group. Yet this seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom on the issue. Is it just that most of the advice out there makes the assumption that the developer has some coordination with the development of the UI project(s) as well, rather than my case, in which I'm just developing libraries for others to use?

  Read the article

• can I use the IOC when using a 3rd party library

  - by Greg

  Hi, Q1 If I have a reusable library that is available, that uses interfaces with classes that use the getInstance concept to create concrete classes for you to use, then in this case would that make sense on the client side to use the IOC container to create instances of these classes? Or is that really applying a double layer of abstraction? Q2 Or in the cases where I'm building the reusable library myself and want the client to use an IOC container, then in my reusable library would I then dispense with any overhead of having factories or "getInstance" methods to instantiate the classes in the client? (i.e. as the IOC container would do this no?)

  Read the article

• Creating an object that is ready to be used & unset properties - with IoC

  - by GetFuzzy

  I have a question regarding the specifics of object creation and the usage of properties. A best practice is to put all the properties into a state such that the object is useful when its created. Object constructors help ensure that required dependencies are created. I've found myself following a pattern lately, and then questioning its appropriateness. The pattern looks like this... public class ThingProcesser { public List<Thing> CalculatedThings { get; set; } public ThingProcesser() { CalculatedThings = new List<Thing>(); } public double FindCertainThing() { CheckForException(); foreach (var thing in CalculatedThings) { //do some stuff with things... } } public double FindOtherThing() { CheckForException(); foreach (var thing in CalculatedThings) { //do some stuff with things... } } private void CheckForException() { if (CalculatedThings.Count < 2) throw new InvalidOperationException("Calculated things must have more than 2 items"); } } The list of items is not being changed, just looked through by the methods. There are several methods on the class, and to avoid having to pass the list of things to each function as a method parameter, I set it once on the class. While this works, does it violate the principle of least astonishment? Since starting to use IoC I find myself not sticking things into the constructor, to avoid having to use a factory pattern. For example, I can argue with myself and say well the ThingProcessor really needs a List to work, so the object should be constructed like this. public class ThingProcesser { public List<Thing> CalculatedThings { get; set; } public ThingProcesser(List<Thing> calculatedThings) { CalculatedThings = calculatedThings; } } However, if I did this, it would complicate things for IoC, and this scenario hardly seems appropriate for something like the factory pattern. So in summary, are there some good guidelines for when something should be part of the object state, vs. passed as a method parameter? When using IoC, is the factory pattern the best way to deal with objects that need created with state? If something has to be passed to multiple methods in a class, does that render it a good candidate to be part of the objects state?

  Read the article

• Explicitly pass context object versus injecting with IoC

  - by SonOfPirate

  I have a layered service application where the service layer delegates operations into the domain layer for execution. Many of these operations need to know the context under which they are operation. (The context included the identity of the current user, culture information, etc. received from the caller.) For example, I have an API method that returns a list of announcements. The list is based on the current user's role and each announcement is localized to their culture. The API is a thin-facade that delegates to an Application Service in my domain layer. The Application Service method obviously needs to know the context of the current request/operation as another call to the same API from another user should result in a different list. Within this method, we also have logging that uses some of the context information so we a clear understanding of the context when the operation was performed (this is especially useful if something goes wrong.) While this is a contrived example, in the real world, my Application Services will coordinate operations with many collaborative components, any number of them also needing the context information. My choice is to pass the context to the Application Service which would then pass it with any calls to collaborators or have the IoC container satisfy the dependency the Application Service and any collaborators have on the context. I am wondering if it is considered good/bad, best practices/code smell, etc. if I pass the context object as a parameter to the domain methods or if injecting the context via an IoC container is preferred. (EDIT: I should mention that the context object is instantiated per-request.)

  Read the article

• IoC library compatible with MonoTouch?

  - by hambonious

  Still getting familiar with the limits of MonoTouch. Is there an IoC/DI library that can be used with MonoTouch. Something like Ninject ideally?

  Read the article

• DI/IoC in Java for a .NET'er used to Castle.Windsor

  - by Ciddan

  Is there a Java DI container that works in a similar way to the most excellent Castle.Windsor container on the .NET side? The Java containers I've had a look at all seem to rely on annotations (Guice) within my services, which I don't dig all that much - I'd like to go POJO all the way if possible. Spring on the other hand can do without the annotations, but it requires a lot of XML. XML configuration != maintainability. One of the really nice things about Castle.Windsor is the wiring you're able to set up in code with Installers, auto wiring based on naming conventions and whatnot. Ideally the container should also support lifecycle management and configuration; i.e. registering components as transient, singleton, pooled etc. Another bonus would be support for interceptors. Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• IoC in MVP Asp.NET

  - by Diego Dias

  Hello, Guys. I'm developing a application using MVP and I have a question about How inject my dependencis in my presenters class. Because my presente receve too an instance of the my view. I thought of create a viewbase and inside it I create my dependencies instances and inject it in my presenter instance. Could also have a HttpModule that intercept the calls to page and then I could inject my dependencies. I have some ideas but none I can inject my view in constructor only I can inject my view in mey presente by property. Someone have any ideas how do you do to inject my dependencies and my view in constructor of the presenter?

  Read the article

• it is a good approach to implement dependency injection in a desktop app?

  - by luis_laurent

  Well, the thing is that I am just about to create a Desktop App (with .NET windows forms) And now I just wonder if it would be really a wise choise to use any IoC (StructureMap,Ninject,Spring .Net), I have used them before for Asp.Net web applications but what makes me doubt now is the fact that working with windows forms my business entities will persist when I navigate through tabs and unlike than web forms or mvc apps where it would be necesary to inject my business entity for every new request that is performed, I mean this because of the Asp.Net page life cycle where is performed the initialization and controls instantiation. Maybe I am misunderstanding the point of using an IoC, so please tell me what do you think would be a better choise?

  Read the article

• Why is IoC / DI not common in Python?

  - by tux21b

  In Java IoC / DI is a very common practice which is extensively used in web applications, nearly all available frameworks and Java EE. On the other hand, there are also lots of big Python web applications, but beside of Zope (which I've heard should be really horrible to code) IoC doesn't seem to be very common in the Python world. (Please name some examples if you think that I'm wrong). There are of course several clones of popular Java IoC frameworks available for Python, springpython for example. But none of them seems to get used practically. At least, I've never stumpled upon a Django or sqlalchemy+<insert your favorite wsgi toolkit here> based web application which uses something like that. In my opinion IoC has reasonable advantages and would make it easy to replace the django-default-user-model for example, but extensive usage of interface classes and IoC in Python looks a bit odd and not »pythonic«. But maybe someone has a better explanation, why IoC isn't widely used in Python.

  Read the article

• Examples of IOC/DI over Singleton

  - by Amitd

  Hi, Just started learning/reading about DI and IOC frameworks. Also I read many articles on SO and internet that say that one should prefer DI/IOC over singleton. Can anyone give/link examples of exactly how DI/IOC eliminates/solves the various issues regarding the Singleton pattern? (hopefully code and explanation for better understanding) Also given a system has already implemented Singleton pattern, how to refactor/implement DI/IOC for the same? (any examples for the same?) (Language/Framework no bars..C# would be helpful) Thanks

  Read the article

• J2EE Applications, SPARC T4, Solaris Containers, and Resource Pools

  - by user12620111

  I've obtained a substantial performance improvement on a SPARC T4-2 Server running a J2EE Application Server Cluster by deploying the cluster members into Oracle Solaris Containers and binding those containers to cores of the SPARC T4 Processor. This is not a surprising result, in fact, it is consistent with other results that are available on the Internet. See the "references", below, for some examples. Nonetheless, here is a summary of my configuration and results. (1.0) Before deploying a J2EE Application Server Cluster into a virtualized environment, many decisions need to be made. I'm not claiming that all of the decisions that I have a made will work well for every environment. In fact, I'm not even claiming that all of the decisions are the best possible for my environment. I'm only claiming that of the small sample of configurations that I've tested, this is the one that is working best for me. Here are some of the decisions that needed to be made: (1.1) Which virtualization option? There are several virtualization options and isolation levels that are available. Options include: Hard partitions:  Dynamic Domains on Sun SPARC Enterprise M-Series Servers Hypervisor based virtualization such as Oracle VM Server for SPARC (LDOMs) on SPARC T-Series Servers OS Virtualization using Oracle Solaris Containers Resource management tools in the Oracle Solaris OS to control the amount of resources an application receives, such as CPU cycles, physical memory, and network bandwidth. Oracle Solaris Containers provide the right level of isolation and flexibility for my environment. To borrow some words from my friends in marketing, "The SPARC T4 processor leverages the unique, no-cost virtualization capabilities of Oracle Solaris Zones"  (1.2) How to associate Oracle Solaris Containers with resources? There are several options available to associate containers with resources, including (a) resource pool association (b) dedicated-cpu resources and (c) capped-cpu resources. I chose to create resource pools and associate them with the containers because I wanted explicit control over the cores and virtual processors.  (1.3) Cluster Topology? Is it best to deploy (a) multiple application servers on one node, (b) one application server on multiple nodes, or (c) multiple application servers on multiple nodes? After a few quick tests, it appears that one application server per Oracle Solaris Container is a good solution. (1.4) Number of cluster members to deploy? I chose to deploy four big 64-bit application servers. I would like go back a test many 32-bit application servers, but that is left for another day. (2.0) Configuration tested. (2.1) I was using a SPARC T4-2 Server which has 2 CPU and 128 virtual processors. To understand the physical layout of the hardware on Solaris 10, I used the OpenSolaris psrinfo perl script available at http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/download/Community+Group+performance/files/psrinfo.pl: test# ./psrinfo.pl -pv The physical processor has 8 cores and 64 virtual processors (0-63) The core has 8 virtual processors (0-7)   The core has 8 virtual processors (8-15)   The core has 8 virtual processors (16-23)   The core has 8 virtual processors (24-31)   The core has 8 virtual processors (32-39)   The core has 8 virtual processors (40-47)   The core has 8 virtual processors (48-55)   The core has 8 virtual processors (56-63)     SPARC-T4 (chipid 0, clock 2848 MHz) The physical processor has 8 cores and 64 virtual processors (64-127)   The core has 8 virtual processors (64-71)   The core has 8 virtual processors (72-79)   The core has 8 virtual processors (80-87)   The core has 8 virtual processors (88-95)   The core has 8 virtual processors (96-103)   The core has 8 virtual processors (104-111)   The core has 8 virtual processors (112-119)   The core has 8 virtual processors (120-127)     SPARC-T4 (chipid 1, clock 2848 MHz) (2.2) The "before" test: without processor binding. I started with a 4-member cluster deployed into 4 Oracle Solaris Containers. Each container used a unique gigabit Ethernet port for HTTP traffic. The containers shared a 10 gigabit Ethernet port for JDBC traffic. (2.3) The "after" test: with processor binding. I ran one application server in the Global Zone and another application server in each of the three non-global zones (NGZ):  (3.0) Configuration steps. The following steps need to be repeated for all three Oracle Solaris Containers. (3.1) Stop AppServers from the BUI. (3.2) Stop the NGZ. test# ssh test-z2 init 5 (3.3) Enable resource pools: test# svcadm enable pools (3.4) Create the resource pool: test# poolcfg -dc 'create pool pool-test-z2' (3.5) Create the processor set: test# poolcfg -dc 'create pset pset-test-z2' (3.6) Specify the maximum number of CPU's that may be addd to the processor set: test# poolcfg -dc 'modify pset pset-test-z2 (uint pset.max=32)' (3.7) bash syntax to add Virtual CPUs to the processor set: test# (( i = 64 )); while (( i < 96 )); do poolcfg -dc "transfer to pset pset-test-z2 (cpu $i)"; (( i = i + 1 )) ; done (3.8) Associate the resource pool with the processor set: test# poolcfg -dc 'associate pool pool-test-z2 (pset pset-test-z2)' (3.9) Tell the zone to use the resource pool that has been created: test# zonecfg -z test-z1 set pool=pool-test-z2 (3.10) Boot the Oracle Solaris Container test# zoneadm -z test-z2 boot (3.11) Save the configuration to /etc/pooladm.conf test# pooladm -s (4.0) Results. Using the resource pools improves both throughput and response time: (5.0) References: System Administration Guide: Oracle Solaris Containers-Resource Management and Oracle Solaris Zones Capitalizing on large numbers of processors with WebSphere Portal on Solaris WebSphere Application Server and T5440 (Dileep Kumar's Weblog)  http://www.brendangregg.com/zones.html Reuters Market Data System, RMDS 6 Multiple Instances (Consolidated), Performance Test Results in Solaris, Containers/Zones Environment on Sun Blade X6270 by Amjad Khan, 2009.

  Read the article

• How do I manage disposing an object when I use IoC?

  - by Aval

  How do I manage disposing an object when I use IoC? My case it is Ninject. // normal explicit dispose using (var dc = new EFContext) { } But sometimes I need to keep the context longer or between function calls. So I want to control this behavior through IoC scope. // if i use this way. how do i make sure object is disposed. var dc = ninject.Get<IContext>() // i cannot use this since the scope can change to singleton. right ?? using (var dc = ninject.Get<IContext>()) { } Sample scopes Container.Bind<IContext>().To<EFContext>().InSingletonScope(); Container.Bind<IContext>().To<EFContext>().InRequestScope();

  Read the article

• Are IoC containers about configuration files?

  - by Jader Dias

  Recently I developed a performance tester console application, with no UI, with the help of a IoC containter (Castle-Windsor-Microkernel). This library enabled me to let the user choose which test(s) to run, simply by changing the configuration file. Have I realized what IoC containers are about? I'm not sure. Even Joel said here on SO that IoC are difficult to understand. From my example, what do you conclude? Am I using IoC container for exactly what they were designed for? Or I am just using one of its secondary features?

  Read the article

• What IoC Containers Support Silverlight?

  - by Matt Casto

  I'm looking for a list of IoC Containers that support Silverlight. I know that Unity and Ninject work with Silverlight, but I haven't found any information that suggests that other well known containers, like StructureMap, Castle Windsor or Autofac, support Silverlight. Has anyone used these, or other, containers or compared them with the Silverlight platform in mind?

  Read the article

• IoC and Design Time

  - by benPearce

  I have a WPF application which I am using to learn MVVM and IoC. The problem is that the Model used by one of the Views expects to pull one of its dependancies in the constructor from an IoC container. When working on this View in the Visual Studio designer it cannot show the design because an exception is being raised in the model. Is there a way around this? Am I pulling my dependancies in the wrong place in code or is there a way I can pass in constructed dependancies, perhaps through Constructor injection. At present the IoC container is setup in code in App.xaml.cs. The IoC container is a roll-your-own taken from this article on MSDN - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc337885.aspx

  Read the article

• Combining MEF and IoC container

  - by Einar Ingebrigtsen

  I primarily use NInject as my IoC container, and is very happy with it - don't want to change that. But some things I want to import using MEF. The thing is, I want the imports to created by the IoC container as the imports can have dependencies to things that I've registered in the NInject IoC. So, my question is: can I import the type of exports in some way, so I can hand it over to NInject for creation or is there an object factory of some kind that I can override in MEF?

  Read the article

• How do I manage object disposal when I use IoC?

  - by Aval

  My case it is Ninject 2. // normal explicit dispose using (var dc = new EFContext) { } But sometimes I need to keep the context longer or between function calls. So I want to control this behavior through IoC scope. // if i use this way. how do i make sure object is disposed. var dc = ninject.Get<IContext>() // i cannot use this since the scope can change to singleton. right ?? using (var dc = ninject.Get<IContext>()) { } Sample scopes Container.Bind<IContext>().To<EFContext>().InSingletonScope(); // OR Container.Bind<IContext>().To<EFContext>().InRequestScope();

  Read the article

• Why are IOC containers unnecessary with dynamic languages

  - by mikemay

  Someone on the Herding Code podcast No. 68, http://herdingcode.com/?p=231, stated that IOC containers had no place with Python or Javascript, or words to that effect. I'm assuming this is conventional wisdom and that it applies to all dynamic languages. Why? What is it about dynamic languages that makes IOC containers unnecessary?

  Read the article

• OpenVZ Can't initialize containers after install

  - by Tonino Jankov

  I have installed OpenVZ on centos 6 on a dedicated server. I followed quick installation guide on openvz wiki. After installing thru yum, I don't know why, but grub.conf wasn't automatically updated to accomodate new kernel, so I had to do it manually. I edited grub.conf, added openvz kernel and rebooted - it went fine. Server went up into openvz kernel and it worked, it started openvz service byitself. But after I created a container, added IP to it and attempted to start it, I couldn't. Here is the output from the shell: [root@cloud2 ~]# vzctl start 86 Starting container ... Container is mounted Container start failed (try to check kernel messages, e.g. "dmesg | tail") Container is unmounted [root@cloud2 ~]# dmesg | tail [ 1973.401596] CT: 86: failed to start with err=-105 [ 2107.113850] Failed to initialize the ICMP6 control socket (err -105). [ 2107.155523] CT: 86: stopped [ 2107.155543] CT: 86: failed to start with err=-105 [ 6348.282184] Failed to initialize the ICMP6 control socket (err -105). [ 6348.330348] CT: 86: stopped [ 6348.330361] CT: 86: failed to start with err=-105 [45184.024002] Failed to initialize the ICMP6 control socket (err -105). [45184.072086] CT: 86: stopped [45184.072099] CT: 86: failed to start with err=-105 [root@cloud2 ~]# I don't know what is wrong. I tried different templates, debian 6, centos 6, i386, amd64, but the issue is the same. What is the problem?

  Read the article

• Will IOC solve our problems?

  - by user127954

  Just trying to implement unit testing into a brownfield type system. Be aware i'm relatively new into the unit testing world. Its going to be a gradual migration of course because there are just so many areas of pain. The current problem i'm trying to solve is we followed a lot of bad practices from our VB6 days and in the conversion of our app to .Net. We have LOT AN LOTS of shared/static functions which call other shared functions and those call others and so on. Sometimes depedencies are passed in as parameters and sometimes they are just newed up within the calling function. I've already instructed our developers to stop creating shared functions and instead create instance members and only use those instance members off of interfaces but that doesn't alleviate the current situation. So you must recursively pass in each and every dependency at the top layer for each function in your code path and method signatures are turning into a mess. I'm hoping this is something that IOC will fix. Currently we are using NUnit/Moq and i'm starting to investigate StructureMap. So far i understand that you pretty much tell StructureMap for x interface i want to default to the concrete class y: ObjectFactory.Initialize(x=>{x.ForRequestType<IInterface>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<MyClass>()}); Then to runtime: var mytype = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IInterface>(); the IOC container will initialize the correct type for you. Not sure yet how to swap a fake in for the concrete type but hopefully thats simple. Again will IOC solve the problems i was talking about above? Is there a specific IOC framework that will do it better than StructureMap or can they all handle this situation. Any help would be much appreciated.

  Read the article

• The IOC "child" container / Service Locator

  - by Mystagogue

  DISCLAIMER: I know there is debate between DI and service locator patterns. I have a question that is intended to avoid the debate. This question is for the service locator fans, who happen to think like Fowler "DI...is hard to understand...on the whole I prefer to avoid it unless I need it." For the purposes of my question, I must avoid DI (reasons intentionally not given), so I'm not trying to spark a debate unrelated to my question. QUESTION: The only issue I might see with keeping my IOC container in a singleton (remember my disclaimer above), is with the use of child containers. Presumably the child containers would not themselves be singletons. At first I thought that poses a real problem. But as I thought about it, I began to think that is precisely the behavior I want (the child containers are not singletons, and can be Disposed() at will). Then my thoughts went further into a philosophical realm. Because I'm a service locator fan, I'm wondering just how necessary the notion of a child container is in the first place. In a small set of cases where I've seen the usefulness, it has either been to satisfy DI (which I'm mostly avoiding anyway), or the issue was solvable without recourse to the IOC container. My thoughts were partly inspired by the IServiceLocator interface which doesn't even bother to list a "GetChildContainer" method. So my question is just that: if you are a service locator fan, have you found that child containers are usually moot? Otherwise, when have they been essential? extra credit: If there are other philosophical issues with service locator in a singleton (aside from those posed by DI advocates), what are they?

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC IoC usability

  - by Andrew Florko

  Hello everybody, How often do you use IoC for controllers/DAL in real projects? IoC allows to abstract application from concrete implementation with additional layer of interfaces that should be implemented. But how often concrete implementation changes? Should we really have to do job twice adding method to interface then the implementation if implementation hardly will ever be changed? I took part in about 10 asp.net projects and DAL (ORM-like and not) was never rewritten completely. Watching lots of videos I clearly understand that IoC "is cool" and the really nice way to program, but does it really needed?

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >