Search Results

Search found 1135 results on 46 pages for 'ioc di'.

Page 2/46 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Unity – Part 5: Injecting Values

    - by Ricardo Peres
    Introduction This is the fifth post on Unity. You can find the introductory post here, the second post, on dependency injection here, a third one on Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP) here and the latest so far, on writing custom extensions, here. This time we will talk about injecting simple values. An Inversion of Control (IoC) / Dependency Injector (DI) container like Unity can be used for things other than injecting complex class dependencies. It can also be used for setting property values or method/constructor parameters whenever a class is built. The main difference is that these values do not have a lifetime manager associated with them and do not come from the regular IoC registration store. Unlike, for instance, MEF, Unity won’t let you register as a dependency a string or an integer, so you have to take a different approach, which I will describe in this post. Scenario Let’s imagine we have a base interface that describes a logger – the same as in previous examples: 1: public interface ILogger 2: { 3: void Log(String message); 4: } And a concrete implementation that writes to a file: 1: public class FileLogger : ILogger 2: { 3: public String Filename 4: { 5: get; 6: set; 7: } 8:  9: #region ILogger Members 10:  11: public void Log(String message) 12: { 13: using (Stream file = File.OpenWrite(this.Filename)) 14: { 15: Byte[] data = Encoding.Default.GetBytes(message); 16: 17: file.Write(data, 0, data.Length); 18: } 19: } 20:  21: #endregion 22: } And let’s say we want the Filename property to come from the application settings (appSettings) section on the Web/App.config file. As usual with Unity, there is an extensibility point that allows us to automatically do this, both with code configuration or statically on the configuration file. Extending Injection We start by implementing a class that will retrieve a value from the appSettings by inheriting from ValueElement: 1: sealed class AppSettingsParameterValueElement : ValueElement, IDependencyResolverPolicy 2: { 3: #region Private methods 4: private Object CreateInstance(Type parameterType) 5: { 6: Object configurationValue = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings[this.AppSettingsKey]; 7:  8: if (parameterType != typeof(String)) 9: { 10: TypeConverter typeConverter = this.GetTypeConverter(parameterType); 11:  12: configurationValue = typeConverter.ConvertFromInvariantString(configurationValue as String); 13: } 14:  15: return (configurationValue); 16: } 17: #endregion 18:  19: #region Private methods 20: private TypeConverter GetTypeConverter(Type parameterType) 21: { 22: if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(this.TypeConverterTypeName) == false) 23: { 24: return (Activator.CreateInstance(TypeResolver.ResolveType(this.TypeConverterTypeName)) as TypeConverter); 25: } 26: else 27: { 28: return (TypeDescriptor.GetConverter(parameterType)); 29: } 30: } 31: #endregion 32:  33: #region Public override methods 34: public override InjectionParameterValue GetInjectionParameterValue(IUnityContainer container, Type parameterType) 35: { 36: Object value = this.CreateInstance(parameterType); 37: return (new InjectionParameter(parameterType, value)); 38: } 39: #endregion 40:  41: #region IDependencyResolverPolicy Members 42:  43: public Object Resolve(IBuilderContext context) 44: { 45: Type parameterType = null; 46:  47: if (context.CurrentOperation is ResolvingPropertyValueOperation) 48: { 49: ResolvingPropertyValueOperation op = (context.CurrentOperation as ResolvingPropertyValueOperation); 50: PropertyInfo prop = op.TypeBeingConstructed.GetProperty(op.PropertyName); 51: parameterType = prop.PropertyType; 52: } 53: else if (context.CurrentOperation is ConstructorArgumentResolveOperation) 54: { 55: ConstructorArgumentResolveOperation op = (context.CurrentOperation as ConstructorArgumentResolveOperation); 56: String args = op.ConstructorSignature.Split('(')[1].Split(')')[0]; 57: Type[] types = args.Split(',').Select(a => Type.GetType(a.Split(' ')[0])).ToArray(); 58: ConstructorInfo ctor = op.TypeBeingConstructed.GetConstructor(types); 59: parameterType = ctor.GetParameters().Where(p => p.Name == op.ParameterName).Single().ParameterType; 60: } 61: else if (context.CurrentOperation is MethodArgumentResolveOperation) 62: { 63: MethodArgumentResolveOperation op = (context.CurrentOperation as MethodArgumentResolveOperation); 64: String methodName = op.MethodSignature.Split('(')[0].Split(' ')[1]; 65: String args = op.MethodSignature.Split('(')[1].Split(')')[0]; 66: Type[] types = args.Split(',').Select(a => Type.GetType(a.Split(' ')[0])).ToArray(); 67: MethodInfo method = op.TypeBeingConstructed.GetMethod(methodName, types); 68: parameterType = method.GetParameters().Where(p => p.Name == op.ParameterName).Single().ParameterType; 69: } 70:  71: return (this.CreateInstance(parameterType)); 72: } 73:  74: #endregion 75:  76: #region Public properties 77: [ConfigurationProperty("appSettingsKey", IsRequired = true)] 78: public String AppSettingsKey 79: { 80: get 81: { 82: return ((String)base["appSettingsKey"]); 83: } 84:  85: set 86: { 87: base["appSettingsKey"] = value; 88: } 89: } 90: #endregion 91: } As you can see from the implementation of the IDependencyResolverPolicy.Resolve method, this will work in three different scenarios: When it is applied to a property; When it is applied to a constructor parameter; When it is applied to an initialization method. The implementation will even try to convert the value to its declared destination, for example, if the destination property is an Int32, it will try to convert the appSettings stored string to an Int32. Injection By Configuration If we want to configure injection by configuration, we need to implement a custom section extension by inheriting from SectionExtension, and registering our custom element with the name “appSettings”: 1: sealed class AppSettingsParameterInjectionElementExtension : SectionExtension 2: { 3: public override void AddExtensions(SectionExtensionContext context) 4: { 5: context.AddElement<AppSettingsParameterValueElement>("appSettings"); 6: } 7: } And on the configuration file, for setting a property, we use it like this: 1: <appSettings> 2: <add key="LoggerFilename" value="Log.txt"/> 3: </appSettings> 4: <unity xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/practices/2010/unity"> 5: <container> 6: <register type="MyNamespace.ILogger, MyAssembly" mapTo="MyNamespace.ConsoleLogger, MyAssembly"/> 7: <register type="MyNamespace.ILogger, MyAssembly" mapTo="MyNamespace.FileLogger, MyAssembly" name="File"> 8: <lifetime type="singleton"/> 9: <property name="Filename"> 10: <appSettings appSettingsKey="LoggerFilename"/> 11: </property> 12: </register> 13: </container> 14: </unity> If we would like to inject the value as a constructor parameter, it would be instead: 1: <unity xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/practices/2010/unity"> 2: <sectionExtension type="MyNamespace.AppSettingsParameterInjectionElementExtension, MyAssembly" /> 3: <container> 4: <register type="MyNamespace.ILogger, MyAssembly" mapTo="MyNamespace.ConsoleLogger, MyAssembly"/> 5: <register type="MyNamespace.ILogger, MyAssembly" mapTo="MyNamespace.FileLogger, MyAssembly" name="File"> 6: <lifetime type="singleton"/> 7: <constructor> 8: <param name="filename" type="System.String"> 9: <appSettings appSettingsKey="LoggerFilename"/> 10: </param> 11: </constructor> 12: </register> 13: </container> 14: </unity> Notice the appSettings section, where we add a LoggerFilename entry, which is the same as the one referred by our AppSettingsParameterInjectionElementExtension extension. For more advanced behavior, you can add a TypeConverterName attribute to the appSettings declaration, where you can pass an assembly qualified name of a class that inherits from TypeConverter. This class will be responsible for converting the appSettings value to a destination type. Injection By Attribute If we would like to use attributes instead, we need to create a custom attribute by inheriting from DependencyResolutionAttribute: 1: [Serializable] 2: [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Parameter | AttributeTargets.Property, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] 3: public sealed class AppSettingsDependencyResolutionAttribute : DependencyResolutionAttribute 4: { 5: public AppSettingsDependencyResolutionAttribute(String appSettingsKey) 6: { 7: this.AppSettingsKey = appSettingsKey; 8: } 9:  10: public String TypeConverterTypeName 11: { 12: get; 13: set; 14: } 15:  16: public String AppSettingsKey 17: { 18: get; 19: private set; 20: } 21:  22: public override IDependencyResolverPolicy CreateResolver(Type typeToResolve) 23: { 24: return (new AppSettingsParameterValueElement() { AppSettingsKey = this.AppSettingsKey, TypeConverterTypeName = this.TypeConverterTypeName }); 25: } 26: } As for file configuration, there is a mandatory property for setting the appSettings key and an optional TypeConverterName  for setting the name of a TypeConverter. Both the custom attribute and the custom section return an instance of the injector AppSettingsParameterValueElement that we implemented in the first place. Now, the attribute needs to be placed before the injected class’ Filename property: 1: public class FileLogger : ILogger 2: { 3: [AppSettingsDependencyResolution("LoggerFilename")] 4: public String Filename 5: { 6: get; 7: set; 8: } 9:  10: #region ILogger Members 11:  12: public void Log(String message) 13: { 14: using (Stream file = File.OpenWrite(this.Filename)) 15: { 16: Byte[] data = Encoding.Default.GetBytes(message); 17: 18: file.Write(data, 0, data.Length); 19: } 20: } 21:  22: #endregion 23: } Or, if we wanted to use constructor injection: 1: public class FileLogger : ILogger 2: { 3: public String Filename 4: { 5: get; 6: set; 7: } 8:  9: public FileLogger([AppSettingsDependencyResolution("LoggerFilename")] String filename) 10: { 11: this.Filename = filename; 12: } 13:  14: #region ILogger Members 15:  16: public void Log(String message) 17: { 18: using (Stream file = File.OpenWrite(this.Filename)) 19: { 20: Byte[] data = Encoding.Default.GetBytes(message); 21: 22: file.Write(data, 0, data.Length); 23: } 24: } 25:  26: #endregion 27: } Usage Just do: 1: ILogger logger = ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<ILogger>("File"); And off you go! A simple way do avoid hardcoded values in component registrations. Of course, this same concept can be applied to registry keys, environment values, XML attributes, etc, etc, just change the implementation of the AppSettingsParameterValueElement class. Next stop: custom lifetime managers.

    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

  • Fabbrica Futuro Nord-Est

    - by Paolo Leveghi
     Il 27 giugno a Verona si è tenuta la seconda edizione di Fabbrica Futuro dedicata all’area Nord Est d’Italia rivolta a tutti gli attori del mercato manifatturiero che ha voluto mettere a confronto idee, raccontare casi di eccellenza e proporre soluzioni concrete per, come recita il sottotitolo del progetto, l’azienda manifatturiera del domani, e in particolare per le aziende produttrici del Triveneto.All’evento sono intervenute un centinaio di persone, in prevalenza Imprenditori e Manager di linea di aziende appartenenti al settore manifatturiero italiano, con una redemption tra iscritti e presenti di poco inferiore al 50% (48,7%). La dimensione aziendale maggiormente rappresentata dai visitatori presenti è la media azienda produttrice del tessuto manifatturiero italiano.I giudizi espressi dai partecipanti che hanno compilato il questionario di feedback, raccontano di un’esperienza positiva sia in termini organizzativi che di contenuto delle relazioni proposte e del livello dei relatori. La giornata ha visto infatti l’esposizione di 17 interventi, tutti in un’unica sessione plenaria, per un totale di 19 relatori tra accademici, utenti e rappresentanti di aziende del mercato dell’offerta.Altro segnale di forte interesse all’evento è stato il numero di richieste per l’attivazione alla newsletter al sito www.fabbricafuturo.it grazie alla quale si può essere costantemente aggiornati sui nuovi contenuti pubblicati e su tutti i prossimi appuntamenti in calendario. A breve inoltre verranno resi disponibili anche i contenuti video filmati durante tutta la sessione plenaria.Il pubblico coinvolto fino ad ora, oltre ad esprimere grande soddisfazione per i contenuti di carattere generale espressi da Fabbrica Futuro, ha chiesto di affiancare a temi più generali approfondimenti più mirati e casi pratici relativi a settori specifici. Da questa esigenza nascono gli “incontri verticali” di Fabbrica Futuro, cinque incontri di approfondimento su specifici temi di interesse per le aziende manifatturiere e che focalizzano le esigenze di specifici mercati di questo settore. Oracle ha partecipato con Sergio Gimelli, che ha parlato dei vantaggi che le aziende possono ottenere adottando un'architettura Cloud per i loro sistemi, portando degli interessanti esempi. .htmtableborders, .htmtableborders td, .htmtableborders th {border : 1px dashed lightgrey ! important;} html, body { border: 0px; } body { background-color: #ffffff; } img, hr { cursor: default }

    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

  • IX eCommerce Forum: Oracle ed Euronics presentano il loro caso di successo

    - by Claudia Caramelli-Oracle
    Promosso da Netcomm, l'evento ha raggiunto la nona edizione. La tematica principale permette di indagare le dinamiche di tutta la filiera del commercio elettronico, offrendo spunti utili grazie al coinvolgimento di ospiti illustri e relatori. L'e-Commerce Forum è il luogo ideale per scoprire le opportunità del mercato italiano.Oracle, insieme a Reply, ha organizzato un workshop lunch rivolto a tutti coloro che sono interessati a sentire storie di successo circa come la piattaforma eCommerce di Oracle è stata implementata con successo. Il testimonial in questa occasione è stato Euronics. Abbiamo avuto in sala quasi 40 persone che hanno trascorso la loro pausa pranzo con noi! La tematica del resto è attuale e in continua evoluzione/espansione: l'interesse è alto e Oracle offre i mezzi più all'avanguardia per costruire la propria storia di successo proiettando le altre realtà sempre più avanti nel commercio elettronico.Per maggiori informazioni scrivi a Silvia Valgoi

    Read the article

  • Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 2 – Interceptor Design

    - by SeanMcAlinden
    Creating a dynamic proxy generator – Part 1 – Creating the Assembly builder, Module builder and caching mechanism For the latest code go to http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ Before getting too involved in generating the proxy, I thought it would be worth while going through the intended design, this is important as the next step is to start creating the constructors for the proxy. Each proxy derives from a specified type The proxy has a corresponding constructor for each of the base type constructors The proxy has overrides for all methods and properties marked as Virtual on the base type For each overridden method, there is also a private method whose sole job is to call the base method. For each overridden method, a delegate is created whose sole job is to call the private method that calls the base method. The following class diagram shows the main classes and interfaces involved in the interception process. I’ll go through each of them to explain their place in the overall proxy.   IProxy Interface The proxy implements the IProxy interface for the sole purpose of adding custom interceptors. This allows the created proxy interface to be cast as an IProxy and then simply add Interceptors by calling it’s AddInterceptor method. This is done internally within the proxy building process so the consumer of the API doesn’t need knowledge of this. IInterceptor Interface The IInterceptor interface has one method: Handle. The handle method accepts a IMethodInvocation parameter which contains methods and data for handling method interception. Multiple classes that implement this interface can be added to the proxy. Each method override in the proxy calls the handle method rather than simply calling the base method. How the proxy fully works will be explained in the next section MethodInvocation. IMethodInvocation Interface & MethodInvocation class The MethodInvocation will contain one main method and multiple helper properties. Continue Method The method Continue() has two functions hidden away from the consumer. When Continue is called, if there are multiple Interceptors, the next Interceptors Handle method is called. If all Interceptors Handle methods have been called, the Continue method then calls the base class method. Properties The MethodInvocation will contain multiple helper properties including at least the following: Method Name (Read Only) Method Arguments (Read and Write) Method Argument Types (Read Only) Method Result (Read and Write) – this property remains null if the method return type is void Target Object (Read Only) Return Type (Read Only) DefaultInterceptor class The DefaultInterceptor class is a simple class that implements the IInterceptor interface. Here is the code: DefaultInterceptor namespace Rapid.DynamicProxy.Interception {     /// <summary>     /// Default interceptor for the proxy.     /// </summary>     /// <typeparam name="TBase">The base type.</typeparam>     public class DefaultInterceptor<TBase> : IInterceptor<TBase> where TBase : class     {         /// <summary>         /// Handles the specified method invocation.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="methodInvocation">The method invocation.</param>         public void Handle(IMethodInvocation<TBase> methodInvocation)         {             methodInvocation.Continue();         }     } } This is automatically created in the proxy and is the first interceptor that each method override calls. It’s sole function is to ensure that if no interceptors have been added, the base method is still called. Custom Interceptor Example A consumer of the Rapid.DynamicProxy API could create an interceptor for logging when the FirstName property of the User class is set. Just for illustration, I have also wrapped a transaction around the methodInvocation.Coninue() method. This means that any overriden methods within the user class will run within a transaction scope. MyInterceptor public class MyInterceptor : IInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>> {     public void Handle(IMethodInvocation<User<int, IRepository>> methodInvocation)     {         if (methodInvocation.Name == "set_FirstName")         {             Logger.Log("First name seting to: " + methodInvocation.Arguments[0]);         }         using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope())         {             methodInvocation.Continue();         }         if (methodInvocation.Name == "set_FirstName")         {             Logger.Log("First name has been set to: " + methodInvocation.Arguments[0]);         }     } } Overridden Method Example To show a taster of what the overridden methods on the proxy would look like, the setter method for the property FirstName used in the above example would look something similar to the following (this is not real code but will look similar): set_FirstName public override void set_FirstName(string value) {     set_FirstNameBaseMethodDelegate callBase =         new set_FirstNameBaseMethodDelegate(this.set_FirstNameProxyGetBaseMethod);     object[] arguments = new object[] { value };     IMethodInvocation<User<IRepository>> methodInvocation =         new MethodInvocation<User<IRepository>>(this, callBase, "set_FirstName", arguments, interceptors);          this.Interceptors[0].Handle(methodInvocation); } As you can see, a delegate instance is created which calls to a private method on the class, the private method calls the base method and would look like the following: calls base setter private void set_FirstNameProxyGetBaseMethod(string value) {     base.set_FirstName(value); } The delegate is invoked when methodInvocation.Continue() is called within an interceptor. The set_FirstName parameters are loaded into an object array. The current instance, delegate, method name and method arguments are passed into the methodInvocation constructor (there will be more data not illustrated here passed in when created including method info, return types, argument types etc.) The DefaultInterceptor’s Handle method is called with the methodInvocation instance as it’s parameter. Obviously methods can have return values, ref and out parameters etc. in these cases the generated method override body will be slightly different from above. I’ll go into more detail on these aspects as we build them. Conclusion I hope this has been useful, I can’t guarantee that the proxy will look exactly like the above, but at the moment, this is pretty much what I intend to do. Always worth downloading the code at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ to see the latest. There will also be some tests that you can debug through to help see what’s going on. Cheers, Sean.

    Read the article

  • Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 4 – Calling the base method

    - by SeanMcAlinden
    Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 1 – Creating the Assembly builder, Module builder and caching mechanism Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 2 – Interceptor Design Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 3 – Creating the constructors   The plan for calling the base methods from the proxy is to create a private method for each overridden proxy method, this will allow the proxy to use a delegate to simply invoke the private method when required. Quite a few helper classes have been created to make this possible so as usual I would suggest download or viewing the code at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/. In this post I’m just going to cover the main points for when creating methods. Getting the methods to override The first two notable methods are for getting the methods. private static MethodInfo[] GetMethodsToOverride<TBase>() where TBase : class {     return typeof(TBase).GetMethods().Where(x =>         !methodsToIgnore.Contains(x.Name) &&                              (x.Attributes & MethodAttributes.Final) == 0)         .ToArray(); } private static StringCollection GetMethodsToIgnore() {     return new StringCollection()     {         "ToString",         "GetHashCode",         "Equals",         "GetType"     }; } The GetMethodsToIgnore method string collection contains an array of methods that I don’t want to override. In the GetMethodsToOverride method, you’ll notice a binary AND which is basically saying not to include any methods marked final i.e. not virtual. Creating the MethodInfo for calling the base method This method should hopefully be fairly easy to follow, it’s only function is to create a MethodInfo which points to the correct base method, and with the correct parameters. private static MethodInfo CreateCallBaseMethodInfo<TBase>(MethodInfo method) where TBase : class {     Type[] baseMethodParameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, method.GetParameters());       return typeof(TBase).GetMethod(        method.Name,        BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic,        null,        baseMethodParameterTypes,        null     ); }   /// <summary> /// Get the parameter types. /// </summary> /// <param name="method">The method.</param> /// <param name="parameters">The parameters.</param> public static Type[] GetParameterTypes(MethodInfo method, ParameterInfo[] parameters) {     Type[] parameterTypesList = Type.EmptyTypes;       if (parameters.Length > 0)     {         parameterTypesList = CreateParametersList(parameters);     }     return parameterTypesList; }   Creating the new private methods for calling the base method The following method outline how I’ve created the private methods for calling the base class method. private static MethodBuilder CreateCallBaseMethodBuilder(TypeBuilder typeBuilder, MethodInfo method) {     string callBaseSuffix = "GetBaseMethod";       if (method.IsGenericMethod || method.IsGenericMethodDefinition)     {                         return MethodHelper.SetUpGenericMethod             (                 typeBuilder,                 method,                 method.Name + callBaseSuffix,                 MethodAttributes.Private | MethodAttributes.HideBySig             );     }     else     {         return MethodHelper.SetupNonGenericMethod             (                 typeBuilder,                 method,                 method.Name + callBaseSuffix,                 MethodAttributes.Private | MethodAttributes.HideBySig             );     } } The CreateCallBaseMethodBuilder is the entry point method for creating the call base method. I’ve added a suffix to the base classes method name to keep it unique. Non Generic Methods Creating a non generic method is fairly simple public static MethodBuilder SetupNonGenericMethod(     TypeBuilder typeBuilder,     MethodInfo method,     string methodName,     MethodAttributes methodAttributes) {     ParameterInfo[] parameters = method.GetParameters();       Type[] parameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, parameters);       Type returnType = method.ReturnType;       MethodBuilder methodBuilder = CreateMethodBuilder         (             typeBuilder,             method,             methodName,             methodAttributes,             parameterTypes,             returnType         );       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameters(parameterTypes, parameters, methodBuilder);       return methodBuilder; }   private static MethodBuilder CreateMethodBuilder (     TypeBuilder typeBuilder,     MethodInfo method,     string methodName,     MethodAttributes methodAttributes,     Type[] parameterTypes,     Type returnType ) { MethodBuilder methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod(methodName, methodAttributes, returnType, parameterTypes); return methodBuilder; } As you can see, you simply have to declare a method builder, get the parameter types, and set the method attributes you want.   Generic Methods Creating generic methods takes a little bit more work. /// <summary> /// Sets up generic method. /// </summary> /// <param name="typeBuilder">The type builder.</param> /// <param name="method">The method.</param> /// <param name="methodName">Name of the method.</param> /// <param name="methodAttributes">The method attributes.</param> public static MethodBuilder SetUpGenericMethod     (         TypeBuilder typeBuilder,         MethodInfo method,         string methodName,         MethodAttributes methodAttributes     ) {     ParameterInfo[] parameters = method.GetParameters();       Type[] parameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, parameters);       MethodBuilder methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod(methodName,         methodAttributes);       Type[] genericArguments = method.GetGenericArguments();       GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters =         GetGenericTypeParameters(methodBuilder, genericArguments);       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameterConstraints(parameterTypes, genericTypeParameters);       SetUpReturnType(method, methodBuilder, genericTypeParameters);       if (method.IsGenericMethod)     {         methodBuilder.MakeGenericMethod(genericArguments);     }       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameters(parameterTypes, parameters, methodBuilder);       return methodBuilder; }   private static GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] GetGenericTypeParameters     (         MethodBuilder methodBuilder,         Type[] genericArguments     ) {     return methodBuilder.DefineGenericParameters(GenericsHelper.GetArgumentNames(genericArguments)); }   private static void SetUpReturnType(MethodInfo method, MethodBuilder methodBuilder, GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters) {     if (method.IsGenericMethodDefinition)     {         SetUpGenericDefinitionReturnType(method, methodBuilder, genericTypeParameters);     }     else     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(method.ReturnType);     } }   private static void SetUpGenericDefinitionReturnType(MethodInfo method, MethodBuilder methodBuilder, GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters) {     if (method.ReturnType == null)     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(typeof(void));     }     else if (method.ReturnType.IsGenericType)     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(genericTypeParameters.Where             (x => x.Name == method.ReturnType.Name).First());     }     else     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(method.ReturnType);     }             } Ok, there are a few helper methods missing, basically there is way to much code to put in this post, take a look at the code at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ to follow it through completely. Basically though, when dealing with generics there is extra work to do in terms of getting the generic argument types setting up any generic parameter constraints setting up the return type setting up the method as a generic All of the information is easy to get via reflection from the MethodInfo.   Emitting the new private method Emitting the new private method is relatively simple as it’s only function is calling the base method and returning a result if the return type is not void. ILGenerator il = privateMethodBuilder.GetILGenerator();   EmitCallBaseMethod(method, callBaseMethod, il);   private static void EmitCallBaseMethod(MethodInfo method, MethodInfo callBaseMethod, ILGenerator il) {     int privateParameterCount = method.GetParameters().Length;       il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);       if (privateParameterCount > 0)     {         for (int arg = 0; arg < privateParameterCount; arg++)         {             il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_S, arg + 1);         }     }       il.Emit(OpCodes.Call, callBaseMethod);       il.Emit(OpCodes.Ret); } So in the main method building method, an ILGenerator is created from the method builder. The ILGenerator performs the following actions: Load the class (this) onto the stack using the hidden argument Ldarg_0. Create an argument on the stack for each of the method parameters (starting at 1 because 0 is the hidden argument) Call the base method using the Opcodes.Call code and the MethodInfo we created earlier. Call return on the method   Conclusion Now we have the private methods prepared for calling the base method, we have reached the last of the relatively easy part of the proxy building. Hopefully, it hasn’t been too hard to follow so far, there is a lot of code so I haven’t been able to post it all so please check it out at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/. The next section should be up fairly soon, it’s going to cover creating the delegates for calling the private methods created in this post.   Kind Regards, Sean.

    Read the article

  • Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 3 – Creating the constructors

    - by SeanMcAlinden
    Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 1 – Creating the Assembly builder, Module builder and caching mechanism Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 2 – Interceptor Design For the latest code go to http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ When building our proxy type, the first thing we need to do is build the constructors. There needs to be a corresponding constructor for each constructor on the passed in base type. We also want to create a field to store the interceptors and construct this list within each constructor. So assuming the passed in base type is a User<int, IRepository> class, were looking to generate constructor code like the following:   Default Constructor public User`2_RapidDynamicBaseProxy() {     this.interceptors = new List<IInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>>>();     DefaultInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>> item = new DefaultInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>>();     this.interceptors.Add(item); }     Parameterised Constructor public User`2_RapidDynamicBaseProxy(IRepository repository1) : base(repository1) {     this.interceptors = new List<IInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>>>();     DefaultInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>> item = new DefaultInterceptor<User<int, IRepository>>();     this.interceptors.Add(item); }   As you can see, we first populate a field on the class with a new list of the passed in base type. Construct our DefaultInterceptor class. Add the DefaultInterceptor instance to our interceptor collection. Although this seems like a relatively small task, there is a fair amount of work require to get this going. Instead of going through every line of code – please download the latest from http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ and debug through. In this post I’m going to concentrate on explaining how it works. TypeBuilder The TypeBuilder class is the main class used to create the type. You instantiate a new TypeBuilder using the assembly module we created in part 1. /// <summary> /// Creates a type builder. /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="TBase">The type of the base class to be proxied.</typeparam> public static TypeBuilder CreateTypeBuilder<TBase>() where TBase : class {     TypeBuilder typeBuilder = DynamicModuleCache.Get.DefineType         (             CreateTypeName<TBase>(),             TypeAttributes.Class | TypeAttributes.Public,             typeof(TBase),             new Type[] { typeof(IProxy) }         );       if (typeof(TBase).IsGenericType)     {         GenericsHelper.MakeGenericType(typeof(TBase), typeBuilder);     }       return typeBuilder; }   private static string CreateTypeName<TBase>() where TBase : class {     return string.Format("{0}_RapidDynamicBaseProxy", typeof(TBase).Name); } As you can see, I’ve create a new public class derived from TBase which also implements my IProxy interface, this is used later for adding interceptors. If the base type is generic, the following GenericsHelper.MakeGenericType method is called. GenericsHelper using System; using System.Reflection.Emit; namespace Rapid.DynamicProxy.Types.Helpers {     /// <summary>     /// Helper class for generic types and methods.     /// </summary>     internal static class GenericsHelper     {         /// <summary>         /// Makes the typeBuilder a generic.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="concrete">The concrete.</param>         /// <param name="typeBuilder">The type builder.</param>         public static void MakeGenericType(Type baseType, TypeBuilder typeBuilder)         {             Type[] genericArguments = baseType.GetGenericArguments();               string[] genericArgumentNames = GetArgumentNames(genericArguments);               GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameterBuilder                 = typeBuilder.DefineGenericParameters(genericArgumentNames);               typeBuilder.MakeGenericType(genericTypeParameterBuilder);         }           /// <summary>         /// Gets the argument names from an array of generic argument types.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="genericArguments">The generic arguments.</param>         public static string[] GetArgumentNames(Type[] genericArguments)         {             string[] genericArgumentNames = new string[genericArguments.Length];               for (int i = 0; i < genericArguments.Length; i++)             {                 genericArgumentNames[i] = genericArguments[i].Name;             }               return genericArgumentNames;         }     } }       As you can see, I’m getting all of the generic argument types and names, creating a GenericTypeParameterBuilder and then using the typeBuilder to make the new type generic. InterceptorsField The interceptors field will store a List<IInterceptor<TBase>>. Fields are simple made using the FieldBuilder class. The following code demonstrates how to create the interceptor field. FieldBuilder interceptorsField = typeBuilder.DefineField(     "interceptors",     typeof(System.Collections.Generic.List<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(IInterceptor<TBase>)),       FieldAttributes.Private     ); The field will now exist with the new Type although it currently has no data – we’ll deal with this in the constructor. Add method for interceptorsField To enable us to add to the interceptorsField list, we are going to utilise the Add method that already exists within the System.Collections.Generic.List class. We still however have to create the methodInfo necessary to call the add method. This can be done similar to the following: Add Interceptor Field MethodInfo addInterceptor = typeof(List<>)     .MakeGenericType(new Type[] { typeof(IInterceptor<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(TBase)) })     .GetMethod     (        "Add",        BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic,        null,        new Type[] { typeof(IInterceptor<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(TBase)) },        null     ); So we’ve create a List<IInterceptor<TBase>> type, then using the type created a method info called Add which accepts an IInterceptor<TBase>. Now in our constructor we can use this to call this.interceptors.Add(// interceptor); Building the Constructors This will be the first hard-core part of the proxy building process so I’m going to show the class and then try to explain what everything is doing. For a clear view, download the source from http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/, go to the test project and debug through the constructor building section. Anyway, here it is: DynamicConstructorBuilder using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Reflection; using System.Reflection.Emit; using Rapid.DynamicProxy.Interception; using Rapid.DynamicProxy.Types.Helpers; namespace Rapid.DynamicProxy.Types.Constructors {     /// <summary>     /// Class for creating the proxy constructors.     /// </summary>     internal static class DynamicConstructorBuilder     {         /// <summary>         /// Builds the constructors.         /// </summary>         /// <typeparam name="TBase">The base type.</typeparam>         /// <param name="typeBuilder">The type builder.</param>         /// <param name="interceptorsField">The interceptors field.</param>         public static void BuildConstructors<TBase>             (                 TypeBuilder typeBuilder,                 FieldBuilder interceptorsField,                 MethodInfo addInterceptor             )             where TBase : class         {             ConstructorInfo interceptorsFieldConstructor = CreateInterceptorsFieldConstructor<TBase>();               ConstructorInfo defaultInterceptorConstructor = CreateDefaultInterceptorConstructor<TBase>();               ConstructorInfo[] constructors = typeof(TBase).GetConstructors();               foreach (ConstructorInfo constructorInfo in constructors)             {                 CreateConstructor<TBase>                     (                         typeBuilder,                         interceptorsField,                         interceptorsFieldConstructor,                         defaultInterceptorConstructor,                         addInterceptor,                         constructorInfo                     );             }         }           #region Private Methods           private static void CreateConstructor<TBase>             (                 TypeBuilder typeBuilder,                 FieldBuilder interceptorsField,                 ConstructorInfo interceptorsFieldConstructor,                 ConstructorInfo defaultInterceptorConstructor,                 MethodInfo AddDefaultInterceptor,                 ConstructorInfo constructorInfo             ) where TBase : class         {             Type[] parameterTypes = GetParameterTypes(constructorInfo);               ConstructorBuilder constructorBuilder = CreateConstructorBuilder(typeBuilder, parameterTypes);               ILGenerator cIL = constructorBuilder.GetILGenerator();               LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable =                 cIL.DeclareLocal(typeof(DefaultInterceptor<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(TBase)));               ConstructInterceptorsField(interceptorsField, interceptorsFieldConstructor, cIL);               ConstructDefaultInterceptor(defaultInterceptorConstructor, cIL, defaultInterceptorMethodVariable);               AddDefaultInterceptorToInterceptorsList                 (                     interceptorsField,                     AddDefaultInterceptor,                     cIL,                     defaultInterceptorMethodVariable                 );               CreateConstructor(constructorInfo, parameterTypes, cIL);         }           private static void CreateConstructor(ConstructorInfo constructorInfo, Type[] parameterTypes, ILGenerator cIL)         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);               if (parameterTypes.Length > 0)             {                 LoadParameterTypes(parameterTypes, cIL);             }               cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Call, constructorInfo);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);         }           private static void LoadParameterTypes(Type[] parameterTypes, ILGenerator cIL)         {             for (int i = 1; i <= parameterTypes.Length; i++)             {                 cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_S, i);             }         }           private static void AddDefaultInterceptorToInterceptorsList             (                 FieldBuilder interceptorsField,                 MethodInfo AddDefaultInterceptor,                 ILGenerator cIL,                 LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable             )         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldfld, interceptorsField);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldloc, defaultInterceptorMethodVariable);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Callvirt, AddDefaultInterceptor);         }           private static void ConstructDefaultInterceptor             (                 ConstructorInfo defaultInterceptorConstructor,                 ILGenerator cIL,                 LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable             )         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, defaultInterceptorConstructor);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Stloc, defaultInterceptorMethodVariable);         }           private static void ConstructInterceptorsField             (                 FieldBuilder interceptorsField,                 ConstructorInfo interceptorsFieldConstructor,                 ILGenerator cIL             )         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, interceptorsFieldConstructor);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Stfld, interceptorsField);         }           private static ConstructorBuilder CreateConstructorBuilder(TypeBuilder typeBuilder, Type[] parameterTypes)         {             return typeBuilder.DefineConstructor                 (                     MethodAttributes.Public | MethodAttributes.SpecialName | MethodAttributes.RTSpecialName                     | MethodAttributes.HideBySig, CallingConventions.Standard, parameterTypes                 );         }           private static Type[] GetParameterTypes(ConstructorInfo constructorInfo)         {             ParameterInfo[] parameterInfoArray = constructorInfo.GetParameters();               Type[] parameterTypes = new Type[parameterInfoArray.Length];               for (int p = 0; p < parameterInfoArray.Length; p++)             {                 parameterTypes[p] = parameterInfoArray[p].ParameterType;             }               return parameterTypes;         }           private static ConstructorInfo CreateInterceptorsFieldConstructor<TBase>() where TBase : class         {             return ConstructorHelper.CreateGenericConstructorInfo                 (                     typeof(List<>),                     new Type[] { typeof(IInterceptor<TBase>) },                     BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic                 );         }           private static ConstructorInfo CreateDefaultInterceptorConstructor<TBase>() where TBase : class         {             return ConstructorHelper.CreateGenericConstructorInfo                 (                     typeof(DefaultInterceptor<>),                     new Type[] { typeof(TBase) },                     BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic                 );         }           #endregion     } } So, the first two tasks within the class should be fairly clear, we are creating a ConstructorInfo for the interceptorField list and a ConstructorInfo for the DefaultConstructor, this is for instantiating them in each contructor. We then using Reflection get an array of all of the constructors in the base class, we then loop through the array and create a corresponding proxy contructor. Hopefully, the code is fairly easy to follow other than some new types and the dreaded Opcodes. ConstructorBuilder This class defines a new constructor on the type. ILGenerator The ILGenerator allows the use of Reflection.Emit to create the method body. LocalBuilder The local builder allows the storage of data in local variables within a method, in this case it’s the constructed DefaultInterceptor. Constructing the interceptors field The first bit of IL you’ll come across as you follow through the code is the following private method used for constructing the field list of interceptors. private static void ConstructInterceptorsField             (                 FieldBuilder interceptorsField,                 ConstructorInfo interceptorsFieldConstructor,                 ILGenerator cIL             )         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, interceptorsFieldConstructor);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Stfld, interceptorsField);         } The first thing to know about generating code using IL is that you are using a stack, if you want to use something, you need to push it up the stack etc. etc. OpCodes.ldArg_0 This opcode is a really interesting one, basically each method has a hidden first argument of the containing class instance (apart from static classes), constructors are no different. This is the reason you can use syntax like this.myField. So back to the method, as we want to instantiate the List in the interceptorsField, first we need to load the class instance onto the stack, we then load the new object (new List<TBase>) and finally we store it in the interceptorsField. Hopefully, that should follow easily enough in the method. In each constructor you would now have this.interceptors = new List<User<int, IRepository>>(); Constructing and storing the DefaultInterceptor The next bit of code we need to create is the constructed DefaultInterceptor. Firstly, we create a local builder to store the constructed type. Create a local builder LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable =     cIL.DeclareLocal(typeof(DefaultInterceptor<>).MakeGenericType(typeof(TBase))); Once our local builder is ready, we then need to construct the DefaultInterceptor<TBase> and store it in the variable. Connstruct DefaultInterceptor private static void ConstructDefaultInterceptor     (         ConstructorInfo defaultInterceptorConstructor,         ILGenerator cIL,         LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable     ) {     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, defaultInterceptorConstructor);     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Stloc, defaultInterceptorMethodVariable); } As you can see, using the ConstructorInfo named defaultInterceptorConstructor, we load the new object onto the stack. Then using the store local opcode (OpCodes.Stloc), we store the new object in the local builder named defaultInterceptorMethodVariable. Add the constructed DefaultInterceptor to the interceptors field collection Using the add method created earlier in this post, we are going to add the new DefaultInterceptor object to the interceptors field collection. Add Default Interceptor private static void AddDefaultInterceptorToInterceptorsList     (         FieldBuilder interceptorsField,         MethodInfo AddDefaultInterceptor,         ILGenerator cIL,         LocalBuilder defaultInterceptorMethodVariable     ) {     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldfld, interceptorsField);     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldloc, defaultInterceptorMethodVariable);     cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Callvirt, AddDefaultInterceptor); } So, here’s whats going on. The class instance is first loaded onto the stack using the load argument at index 0 opcode (OpCodes.Ldarg_0) (remember the first arg is the hidden class instance). The interceptorsField is then loaded onto the stack using the load field opcode (OpCodes.Ldfld). We then load the DefaultInterceptor object we stored locally using the load local opcode (OpCodes.Ldloc). Then finally we call the AddDefaultInterceptor method using the call virtual opcode (Opcodes.Callvirt). Completing the constructor The last thing we need to do is complete the constructor. Complete the constructor private static void CreateConstructor(ConstructorInfo constructorInfo, Type[] parameterTypes, ILGenerator cIL)         {             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);               if (parameterTypes.Length > 0)             {                 LoadParameterTypes(parameterTypes, cIL);             }               cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Call, constructorInfo);             cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);         }           private static void LoadParameterTypes(Type[] parameterTypes, ILGenerator cIL)         {             for (int i = 1; i <= parameterTypes.Length; i++)             {                 cIL.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_S, i);             }         } So, the first thing we do again is load the class instance using the load argument at index 0 opcode (OpCodes.Ldarg_0). We then load each parameter using OpCode.Ldarg_S, this opcode allows us to specify an index position for each argument. We then setup calling the base constructor using OpCodes.Call and the base constructors ConstructorInfo. Finally, all methods are required to return, even when they have a void return. As there are no values on the stack after the OpCodes.Call line, we can safely call the OpCode.Ret to give the constructor a void return. If there was a value, we would have to pop the value of the stack before calling return otherwise, the method would try and return a value. Conclusion This was a slightly hardcore post but hopefully it hasn’t been too hard to follow. The main thing is that a number of the really useful opcodes have been used and now the dynamic proxy is capable of being constructed. If you download the code and debug through the tests at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/, you’ll be able to create proxies at this point, they cannon do anything in terms of interception but you can happily run the tests, call base methods and properties and also take a look at the created assembly in Reflector. Hope this is useful. The next post should be up soon, it will be covering creating the private methods for calling the base class methods and properties. Kind Regards, Sean.

    Read the article

  • Connect ViewModel and View using Unity

    - by brainbox
    In this post i want to describe the approach of connecting View and ViewModel which I'm using in my last project.The main idea is to do it during resolve inside of unity container. It can be achived using InjectionFactory introduced in Unity 2.0 public static class MVVMUnityExtensions{    public static void RegisterView<TView, TViewModel>(this IUnityContainer container) where TView : FrameworkElement    {        container.RegisterView<TView, TView, TViewModel>();    }    public static void RegisterView<TViewFrom, TViewTo, TViewModel>(this IUnityContainer container)        where TViewTo : FrameworkElement, TViewFrom    {        container.RegisterType<TViewFrom>(new InjectionFactory(            c =>            {                var model = c.Resolve<TViewModel>();                var view = Activator.CreateInstance<TViewTo>();                view.DataContext = model;                return view;            }         ));    }}}And here is the sample how it could be used:var unityContainer = new UnityContainer();unityContainer.RegisterView<IFooView, FooView, FooViewModel>();IFooView view = unityContainer.Resolve<IFooView>(); // view with injected viewmodel in its datacontextPlease tell me your prefered way to connect viewmodel and view.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • DI: Injecting ActionFilterAttribute implementation (ASP.NET MVC)

    - by Sosh
    I was wondering if it is possible to inject a particular ActionFilterAttribute implementation using a IoC container. For example, imagine you create a TransactionAttribute class [Transaction] You use this to decorate action which should be wrapped in a transaction in the persistence layer. But implementation details of the attribute will be tied to the persistence tech you are using, but strictly speaking, your controller should not know about this, and you might want to swap this out. What I would like to do, is define some kind of TransactionAttribute interface, and then have my IoC inject the correct implantation. So on my actions I only need specify: [Transaction] public ActionResult SomeAction() { .... } ...and the IoC will inject the correct implementation depending on config (eg. something like NHibernateTransactionAttribute, or SomeOtherORMTransactionAttribute). Is this possible? Has anyone done it?

    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

  • Collezioni, taglia/colore, riassortimenti: l'incubo del produttori di moda

    - by antonella.buonagurio(at)oracle.com
    Chiunque lavori  o abbia lavorato nel mondo della moda, sia essa alta o pronta, capi spalla o calzature, conosce bene i problemi che nascono dalle mille combinazioni di taglie, tessuti, modelli e come produrre riducendo al minimo scarti e resi. "Per soddisfare le aspettative dei consumatori sempre più volatile e specifici, i produttori ei distributori devono essere in grado di semplificare la gestione di oggetti complessi multi-attributo," ha detto Lyle Ekdahl, vice presidente del gruppo Oracle, JD Edwards.  

    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

  • 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

  • overwhelmed by IOC choices

    - by Steve
    There are so many IOC choices, that I don't know where to begin. I've looked at Spring.NET, Unity, Ninject, Windsor, and StructureMap so far, and I have no idea what makes one better than the other. So, what is your favorite IOC, and what feature(s) makes you use it over any other?

    Read the article

  • IOC Container Handling State Params in Non-Default Constructor

    - by Mystagogue
    For the purpose of this discussion, there are two kinds of parameters an object constructor might take: state dependency or service dependency. Supplying a service dependency with an IOC container is easy: DI takes over. But in contrast, state dependencies are usually only known to the client. That is, the object requestor. It turns out that having a client supply the state params through an IOC Container is quite painful. I will show several different ways to do this, all of which have big problems, and ask the community if there is another option I'm missing. Let's begin: Before I added an IOC container to my project code, I started with a class like this: class Foobar { //parameters are state dependencies, not service dependencies public Foobar(string alpha, int omega){...}; //...other stuff } I decide to add a Logger service depdendency to the Foobar class, which perhaps I'll provide through DI: class Foobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; //...other stuff } But then I'm also told I need to make class Foobar itself "swappable." That is, I'm required to service-locate a Foobar instance. I add a new interface into the mix: class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; //...other stuff } When I make the service locator call, it will DI the ILogger service dependency for me. Unfortunately the same is not true of the state dependencies Alpha and Omega. Some containers offer a syntax to address this: //Unity 2.0 pseudo-ish code: myContainer.Resolve<IFoobar>( new parameterOverride[] { {"alpha", "one"}, {"omega",2} } ); I like the feature, but I don't like that it is untyped and not evident to the developer what parameters must be passed (via intellisense, etc). So I look at another solution: //This is a "boiler plate" heavy approach! class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar (string alpha, int omega){...}; //...stuff } class FoobarFactory : IFoobarFactory { public IFoobar IFoobarFactory.Create(string alpha, int omega){ return new Foobar(alpha, omega); } } //fetch it... myContainer.Resolve<IFoobarFactory>().Create("one", 2); The above solves the type-safety and intellisense problem, but it (1) forced class Foobar to fetch an ILogger through a service locator rather than DI and (2) it requires me to make a bunch of boiler-plate (XXXFactory, IXXXFactory) for all varieties of Foobar implementations I might use. Should I decide to go with a pure service locator approach, it may not be a problem. But I still can't stand all the boiler-plate needed to make this work. So then I try this: //code named "concrete creator" class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; static IFoobar Create(string alpha, int omega){ //unity 2.0 pseudo-ish code. Assume a common //service locator, or singleton holds the container... return Container.Resolve<IFoobar>( new parameterOverride[] {{"alpha", alpha},{"omega", omega} } ); } //Get my instance: Foobar.Create("alpha",2); I actually don't mind that I'm using the concrete "Foobar" class to create an IFoobar. It represents a base concept that I don't expect to change in my code. I also don't mind the lack of type-safety in the static "Create", because it is now encapsulated. My intellisense is working too! Any concrete instance made this way will ignore the supplied state params if they don't apply (a Unity 2.0 behavior). Perhaps a different concrete implementation "FooFoobar" might have a formal arg name mismatch, but I'm still pretty happy with it. But the big problem with this approach is that it only works effectively with Unity 2.0 (a mismatched parameter in Structure Map will throw an exception). So it is good only if I stay with Unity. The problem is, I'm beginning to like Structure Map a lot more. So now I go onto yet another option: class Foobar : IFoobar, IFoobarInit { public Foobar(ILogger log){...}; public IFoobar IFoobarInit.Initialize(string alpha, int omega){ this.alpha = alpha; this.omega = omega; return this; } } //now create it... IFoobar foo = myContainer.resolve<IFoobarInit>().Initialize("one", 2) Now with this I've got a somewhat nice compromise with the other approaches: (1) My arguments are type-safe / intellisense aware (2) I have a choice of fetching the ILogger via DI (shown above) or service locator, (3) there is no need to make one or more seperate concrete FoobarFactory classes (contrast with the verbose "boiler-plate" example code earlier), and (4) it reasonably upholds the principle "make interfaces easy to use correctly, and hard to use incorrectly." At least it arguably is no worse than the alternatives previously discussed. One acceptance barrier yet remains: I also want to apply "design by contract." Every sample I presented was intentionally favoring constructor injection (for state dependencies) because I want to preserve "invariant" support as most commonly practiced. Namely, the invariant is established when the constructor completes. In the sample above, the invarient is not established when object construction completes. As long as I'm doing home-grown "design by contract" I could just tell developers not to test the invariant until the Initialize(...) method is called. But more to the point, when .net 4.0 comes out I want to use its "code contract" support for design by contract. From what I read, it will not be compatible with this last approach. Curses! Of course it also occurs to me that my entire philosophy is off. Perhaps I'd be told that conjuring a Foobar : IFoobar via a service locator implies that it is a service - and services only have other service dependencies, they don't have state dependencies (such as the Alpha and Omega of these examples). I'm open to listening to such philosophical matters as well, but I'd also like to know what semi-authorative reference to read that would steer me down that thought path. So now I turn it to the community. What approach should I consider that I havn't yet? Must I really believe I've exhausted my options?

    Read the article

  • IoC - Dynamic Composition of object instances

    - by Joshua Starner
    Is there a way using IoC, MEF [Imports], or another DI solution to compose dependencies on the fly at object creation time instead of during composition time? Here's my current thought. If you have an instance of an object that raises events, but you are not creating the object once and saving it in memory, you have to register the event handlers every time the object is created. As far as I can tell, most IoC containers require you to register all of the classes used in composition and call Compose() to make it hook up all the dependencies. I think this may be horrible design (I'm dealing with a legacy system here) to do this due to the overhead of object creation, dependency injection, etc... but I was wondering if it was possible using one of the emergent IoC technologies. Maybe I have some terminology mixed up, but my goal is to avoid writing a framework to "hook up all the events" on an instance of an object, and use something like MEF to [Export] handlers (dependencies) that adhere to a very specific interface and [ImportMany] them into an object instance so my exports get called if the assemblies are there when the application starts. So maybe all of the objects could still be composed when the application starts, but I want the system to find and call all of them as the object is created and destroyed.

    Read the article

  • NHibernate Session DI from StructureMap in components

    - by Corey Coogan
    I know this is somewhat of a dead horse, but I'm not finding a satisfactory answer. First let me say, I am NOT dealing with a web app, otherwise managing NH Session is quite simple. I have a bunch of enterprise components. Those components have their own service layer that will act on multiple repositories. For example: Claim Component Claim Processing Service Claim Repository Billing Component Billing Service Billing REpository Policy Component PolicyLockService Policy Repository Now I may have a console, or windows application that needs to coordinate an operation that involves each of the services. I want to write the services to be injected with (DI) their required repositories. The Repositories should have an ISession, or similar, injected into them so that I can have this operation performed under one ISession/ITransaction. I'm aware of the Unit Of Work pattern and the many samples out there, but none of them showed DI. I'm also leery of [ThreadStatic] because this stuff can also be used from WCF and I have found enough posts describing how to do that. I've read about Business Conversations, but need something simple that each windows/console app can easily bootstrap since we have alot of these apps and some pretty inexperienced developers. So how can I configure StructureMap to inject the same ISession into each of the dependent repositories from an application? Here's a totally contrived and totally made up example without using SM (for clarification only - please don't spend energy critisizing): ConsoleApplication Main { using(ISession session = GetSession()) using(ITransaction trans = session.BeginTransaction()) { var policyRepo = new PolicyRepo(session); var policyService = new PolicyService(policyRepo); var billingRepo = new BillingRepo(session) var billingService = new BillingService(billingRepo); var claimRepo = new ClaimsRepo(session); var claimService = new ClaimService(claimRepo, policyService, billingService); claimService.FileCLaim(); trans.Commit(); } }

    Read the article

  • Injecting Dependencies into Domain Model classes with Nhibernate (ASP.NET MVC + IOC)

    - by Sunday Ironfoot
    I'm building an ASP.NET MVC application that uses a DDD (Domain Driven Design) approach with database access handled by NHibernate. I have domain model class (Administrator) that I want to inject a dependency into via an IOC Container such as Castle Windsor, something like this: public class Administrator { public virtual int Id { get; set; } //.. snip ..// public virtual string HashedPassword { get; protected set; } public void SetPassword(string plainTextPassword) { IHashingService hasher = IocContainer.Resolve<IHashingService>(); this.HashedPassword = hasher.Hash(plainTextPassword); } } I basically want to inject IHashingService for the SetPassword method without calling the IOC Container directly (because this is suppose to be an IOC Anti-pattern). But I'm not sure how to go about doing it. My Administrator object either gets instantiated via new Administrator(); or it gets loaded via NHibernate, so how would I inject the IHashingService into the Administrator class? On second thoughts, am I going about this the right way? I was hoping to avoid having my codebase littered with... currentAdmin.Password = HashUtils.Hash(password, Algorithm.Sha512); ...and instead get the domain model itself to take care of hashing and neatly encapsulate it away. I can envisage another developer accidently choosing the wrong algorithm and having some passwords as Sha512, and some as MD5, some with one salt, and some with a different salt etc. etc. Instead if developers are writing... currentAdmin.SetPassword(password); ...then that would hide those details away and take care of those problems listed above would it not?

    Read the article

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