Search Results

Search found 269 results on 11 pages for 'sealed'.

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

  • To 'seal' or to 'wrap': that is the question ...

    - by Simon Thorpe
    If you follow this blog you will already have a good idea of what Oracle Information Rights Management (IRM) does. By encrypting documents Oracle IRM secures and tracks all copies of those documents, everywhere they are shared, stored and used, inside and outside your firewall. Unlike earlier encryption products authorized end users can transparently use IRM-encrypted documents within standard desktop applications such as Microsoft Office, Adobe Reader, Internet Explorer, etc. without first having to manually decrypt the documents. Oracle refers to this encryption process as 'sealing', and it is thanks to the freely available Oracle IRM Desktop that end users can transparently open 'sealed' documents within desktop applications without needing to know they are encrypted and without being able to save them out in unencrypted form. So Oracle IRM provides an amazing, unprecedented capability to secure and track every copy of your most sensitive information - even enabling end user access to be revoked long after the documents have been copied to home computers or burnt to CD/DVDs. But what doesn't it do? The main limitation of Oracle IRM (and IRM products in general) is format and platform support. Oracle IRM supports by far the broadest range of desktop applications and the deepest range of application versions, compared to other IRM vendors. This is important because you don't want to exclude sensitive business processes from being 'sealed' just because either the file format is not supported or users cannot upgrade to the latest version of Microsoft Office or Adobe Reader. But even the Oracle IRM Desktop can only open 'sealed' documents on Windows and does not for example currently support CAD (although this is coming in a future release). IRM products from other vendors are much more restrictive. To address this limitation Oracle has just made available the Oracle IRM Wrapper all-format, any-platform encryption/decryption utility. It uses the same core Oracle IRM web services and classification-based rights model to manually encrypt and decrypt files of any format on any Java-capable operating system. The encryption envelope is the same, and it uses the same role- and classification-based rights as 'sealing', but before you can use 'wrapped' files you must manually decrypt them. Essentially it is old-school manual encryption/decryption using the modern classification-based rights model of Oracle IRM. So if you want to share sensitive CAD documents, ZIP archives, media files, etc. with a partner, and you already have Oracle IRM, it's time to get 'wrapping'! Please note that the Oracle IRM Wrapper is made available as a free sample application (with full source code) and is not formally supported by Oracle. However it is informally supported by its author, Martin Lambert, who also created the widely-used Oracle IRM Hot Folder automated sealing application.

    Read the article

  • Reflection, get DataAnnotation attributes from buddy class.

    - by Feryt
    Hi. I need to check if property has specific attribute defined in its buddy class: [MetadataType(typeof(Metadata))] public sealed partial class Address { private sealed class Metadata { [Required] public string Address1 { get; set; } [Required] public string Zip { get; set; } } } How to check what properties has defined Required attribute? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Implementing INotifyPropertyChanged with PostSharp 1.5

    - by no9
    Hello all. Im new to .NET and WPF so i hope i will ask the question correctly. I am using INotifyPropertyChanged implemented using PostSharp 1.5: [Serializable, DebuggerNonUserCode, AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Assembly | AttributeTargets.Class, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = false), MulticastAttributeUsage(MulticastTargets.Class, AllowMultiple = false, Inheritance = MulticastInheritance.None, AllowExternalAssemblies = true)] public sealed class NotifyPropertyChangedAttribute : CompoundAspect { public int AspectPriority { get; set; } public override void ProvideAspects(object element, LaosReflectionAspectCollection collection) { Type targetType = (Type)element; collection.AddAspect(targetType, new PropertyChangedAspect { AspectPriority = AspectPriority }); foreach (var info in targetType.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance).Where(pi => pi.GetSetMethod() != null)) { collection.AddAspect(info.GetSetMethod(), new NotifyPropertyChangedAspect(info.Name) { AspectPriority = AspectPriority }); } } } [Serializable] internal sealed class PropertyChangedAspect : CompositionAspect { public override object CreateImplementationObject(InstanceBoundLaosEventArgs eventArgs) { return new PropertyChangedImpl(eventArgs.Instance); } public override Type GetPublicInterface(Type containerType) { return typeof(INotifyPropertyChanged); } public override CompositionAspectOptions GetOptions() { return CompositionAspectOptions.GenerateImplementationAccessor; } } [Serializable] internal sealed class NotifyPropertyChangedAspect : OnMethodBoundaryAspect { private readonly string _propertyName; public NotifyPropertyChangedAspect(string propertyName) { if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(propertyName)) throw new ArgumentNullException("propertyName"); _propertyName = propertyName; } public override void OnEntry(MethodExecutionEventArgs eventArgs) { var targetType = eventArgs.Instance.GetType(); var setSetMethod = targetType.GetProperty(_propertyName); if (setSetMethod == null) throw new AccessViolationException(); var oldValue = setSetMethod.GetValue(eventArgs.Instance, null); var newValue = eventArgs.GetReadOnlyArgumentArray()[0]; if (oldValue == newValue) eventArgs.FlowBehavior = FlowBehavior.Return; } public override void OnSuccess(MethodExecutionEventArgs eventArgs) { var instance = eventArgs.Instance as IComposed<INotifyPropertyChanged>; var imp = instance.GetImplementation(eventArgs.InstanceCredentials) as PropertyChangedImpl; imp.OnPropertyChanged(_propertyName); } } [Serializable] internal sealed class PropertyChangedImpl : INotifyPropertyChanged { private readonly object _instance; public PropertyChangedImpl(object instance) { if (instance == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("instance"); _instance = instance; } public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged; internal void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName) { if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(propertyName)) throw new ArgumentNullException("propertyName"); var handler = PropertyChanged as PropertyChangedEventHandler; if (handler != null) handler(_instance, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName)); } } } Then i have a couple of classes (user and adress) that implement [NotifyPropertyChanged]. It works fine. But what i want would be that if the child object changes (in my example address) that the parent object gets notified (in my case user). Would it be possible to expand this code so it automaticly creates listeners on parent objects that listen for changes in its child objets?

    Read the article

  • Windows 8&ndash;Custom WinRT components and WinJS

    - by Jonas Bush
    Wow, I’m still alive! I installed the RTM of Windows 8 when it became available, and in the last few days have started taking a look at writing a windows 8 app using HTML/JS, which in and of itself is a weird thing. I don’t think that windows developers of 10 years ago would’ve thought something like this would have ever come about. As I was working on this, I ran across a problem, found the solution, and thought I’d blog about it to try and kick start me back into blogging. I already answered my own question on Stack Overflow, but will explain here. I needed to create a custom WinRT component to do some stuff that I either wouldn’t be able to or didn’t know how to do with the javascript libraries available to me. I had a javascript class defined like this: WinJS.Namespace.define("MyApp", { MyClass: WinJS.Class.define(function() { //constructor function }, { /*instance members*/ }, { /*static members*/ }) }); This gives me an object I can access in javascript: var foo = new MyApp.MyClass(); I created my WinRT component like this: namespace MyApp { public sealed class SomeClass { public int SomeMethod() { return 42; } } }   With the thought that from my javascript, I’d be able to do this: var foo = new MyApp.MyClass(); var bar = new MyApp.SomeClass(); //from WinRT component foo.SomeProperty = bar.SomeMethod();   When I tried this, I got the following error when trying to construct MyApp.MyClass (the object defined in Javascript) 0x800a01bd - Javascript runtime error: Object doesn't support this action. I puzzled for a bit, then noticed while debugging that my “MyApp” namespace didn’t have anything in it other than the WinRT component. I changed my WinRT component to this: namespace MyAppUtils { public sealed class SomeClass { //etc } } And after this, everything was fine. So, lesson learned: If you’re using Javascript and create a custom WinRT component, make sure that the WinRT component is in a namespace all its own. Not sure why this happens, and if I find out why or if MS says something about this somewhere, I’ll come back and update this.

    Read the article

  • C#: Handling Notifications: inheritance, events, or delegates?

    - by James Michael Hare
    Often times as developers we have to design a class where we get notification when certain things happen. In older object-oriented code this would often be implemented by overriding methods -- with events, delegates, and interfaces, however, we have far more elegant options. So, when should you use each of these methods and what are their strengths and weaknesses? Now, for the purposes of this article when I say notification, I'm just talking about ways for a class to let a user know that something has occurred. This can be through any programmatic means such as inheritance, events, delegates, etc. So let's build some context. I'm sitting here thinking about a provider neutral messaging layer for the place I work, and I got to the point where I needed to design the message subscriber which will receive messages from the message bus. Basically, what we want is to be able to create a message listener and have it be called whenever a new message arrives. Now, back before the flood we would have done this via inheritance and an abstract class: 1:  2: // using inheritance - omitting argument null checks and halt logic 3: public abstract class MessageListener 4: { 5: private ISubscriber _subscriber; 6: private bool _isHalted = false; 7: private Thread _messageThread; 8:  9: // assign the subscriber and start the messaging loop 10: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber) 11: { 12: _subscriber = subscriber; 13: _messageThread = new Thread(MessageLoop); 14: _messageThread.Start(); 15: } 16:  17: // user will override this to process their messages 18: protected abstract void OnMessageReceived(Message msg); 19:  20: // handle the looping in the thread 21: private void MessageLoop() 22: { 23: while(!_isHalted) 24: { 25: // as long as processing, wait 1 second for message 26: Message msg = _subscriber.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); 27: if(msg != null) 28: { 29: OnMessageReceived(msg); 30: } 31: } 32: } 33: ... 34: } It seems so odd to write this kind of code now. Does it feel odd to you? Maybe it's just because I've gotten so used to delegation that I really don't like the feel of this. To me it is akin to saying that if I want to drive my car I need to derive a new instance of it just to put myself in the driver's seat. And yet, unquestionably, five years ago I would have probably written the code as you see above. To me, inheritance is a flawed approach for notifications due to several reasons: Inheritance is one of the HIGHEST forms of coupling. You can't seal the listener class because it depends on sub-classing to work. Because C# does not allow multiple-inheritance, I've spent my one inheritance implementing this class. Every time you need to listen to a bus, you have to derive a class which leads to lots of trivial sub-classes. The act of consuming a message should be a separate responsibility than the act of listening for a message (SRP). Inheritance is such a strong statement (this IS-A that) that it should only be used in building type hierarchies and not for overriding use-specific behaviors and notifications. Chances are, if a class needs to be inherited to be used, it most likely is not designed as well as it could be in today's modern programming languages. So lets look at the other tools available to us for getting notified instead. Here's a few other choices to consider. Have the listener expose a MessageReceived event. Have the listener accept a new IMessageHandler interface instance. Have the listener accept an Action<Message> delegate. Really, all of these are different forms of delegation. Now, .NET events are a bit heavier than the other types of delegates in terms of run-time execution, but they are a great way to allow others using your class to subscribe to your events: 1: // using event - ommiting argument null checks and halt logic 2: public sealed class MessageListener 3: { 4: private ISubscriber _subscriber; 5: private bool _isHalted = false; 6: private Thread _messageThread; 7:  8: // assign the subscriber and start the messaging loop 9: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber) 10: { 11: _subscriber = subscriber; 12: _messageThread = new Thread(MessageLoop); 13: _messageThread.Start(); 14: } 15:  16: // user will override this to process their messages 17: public event Action<Message> MessageReceived; 18:  19: // handle the looping in the thread 20: private void MessageLoop() 21: { 22: while(!_isHalted) 23: { 24: // as long as processing, wait 1 second for message 25: Message msg = _subscriber.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); 26: if(msg != null && MessageReceived != null) 27: { 28: MessageReceived(msg); 29: } 30: } 31: } 32: } Note, now we can seal the class to avoid changes and the user just needs to provide a message handling method: 1: theListener.MessageReceived += CustomReceiveMethod; However, personally I don't think events hold up as well in this case because events are largely optional. To me, what is the point of a listener if you create one with no event listeners? So in my mind, use events when handling the notification is optional. So how about the delegation via interface? I personally like this method quite a bit. Basically what it does is similar to inheritance method mentioned first, but better because it makes it easy to split the part of the class that doesn't change (the base listener behavior) from the part that does change (the user-specified action after receiving a message). So assuming we had an interface like: 1: public interface IMessageHandler 2: { 3: void OnMessageReceived(Message receivedMessage); 4: } Our listener would look like this: 1: // using delegation via interface - omitting argument null checks and halt logic 2: public sealed class MessageListener 3: { 4: private ISubscriber _subscriber; 5: private IMessageHandler _handler; 6: private bool _isHalted = false; 7: private Thread _messageThread; 8:  9: // assign the subscriber and start the messaging loop 10: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber, IMessageHandler handler) 11: { 12: _subscriber = subscriber; 13: _handler = handler; 14: _messageThread = new Thread(MessageLoop); 15: _messageThread.Start(); 16: } 17:  18: // handle the looping in the thread 19: private void MessageLoop() 20: { 21: while(!_isHalted) 22: { 23: // as long as processing, wait 1 second for message 24: Message msg = _subscriber.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); 25: if(msg != null) 26: { 27: _handler.OnMessageReceived(msg); 28: } 29: } 30: } 31: } And they would call it by creating a class that implements IMessageHandler and pass that instance into the constructor of the listener. I like that this alleviates the issues of inheritance and essentially forces you to provide a handler (as opposed to events) on construction. Well, this is good, but personally I think we could go one step further. While I like this better than events or inheritance, it still forces you to implement a specific method name. What if that name collides? Furthermore if you have lots of these you end up either with large classes inheriting multiple interfaces to implement one method, or lots of small classes. Also, if you had one class that wanted to manage messages from two different subscribers differently, it wouldn't be able to because the interface can't be overloaded. This brings me to using delegates directly. In general, every time I think about creating an interface for something, and if that interface contains only one method, I start thinking a delegate is a better approach. Now, that said delegates don't accomplish everything an interface can. Obviously having the interface allows you to refer to the classes that implement the interface which can be very handy. In this case, though, really all you want is a method to handle the messages. So let's look at a method delegate: 1: // using delegation via delegate - omitting argument null checks and halt logic 2: public sealed class MessageListener 3: { 4: private ISubscriber _subscriber; 5: private Action<Message> _handler; 6: private bool _isHalted = false; 7: private Thread _messageThread; 8:  9: // assign the subscriber and start the messaging loop 10: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber, Action<Message> handler) 11: { 12: _subscriber = subscriber; 13: _handler = handler; 14: _messageThread = new Thread(MessageLoop); 15: _messageThread.Start(); 16: } 17:  18: // handle the looping in the thread 19: private void MessageLoop() 20: { 21: while(!_isHalted) 22: { 23: // as long as processing, wait 1 second for message 24: Message msg = _subscriber.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); 25: if(msg != null) 26: { 27: _handler(msg); 28: } 29: } 30: } 31: } Here the MessageListener now takes an Action<Message>.  For those of you unfamiliar with the pre-defined delegate types in .NET, that is a method with the signature: void SomeMethodName(Message). The great thing about delegates is it gives you a lot of power. You could create an anonymous delegate, a lambda, or specify any other method as long as it satisfies the Action<Message> signature. This way, you don't need to define an arbitrary helper class or name the method a specific thing. Incidentally, we could combine both the interface and delegate approach to allow maximum flexibility. Doing this, the user could either pass in a delegate, or specify a delegate interface: 1: // using delegation - give users choice of interface or delegate 2: public sealed class MessageListener 3: { 4: private ISubscriber _subscriber; 5: private Action<Message> _handler; 6: private bool _isHalted = false; 7: private Thread _messageThread; 8:  9: // assign the subscriber and start the messaging loop 10: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber, Action<Message> handler) 11: { 12: _subscriber = subscriber; 13: _handler = handler; 14: _messageThread = new Thread(MessageLoop); 15: _messageThread.Start(); 16: } 17:  18: // passes the interface method as a delegate using method group 19: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber, IMessageHandler handler) 20: : this(subscriber, handler.OnMessageReceived) 21: { 22: } 23:  24: // handle the looping in the thread 25: private void MessageLoop() 26: { 27: while(!_isHalted) 28: { 29: // as long as processing, wait 1 second for message 30: Message msg = _subscriber.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); 31: if(msg != null) 32: { 33: _handler(msg); 34: } 35: } 36: } 37: } } This is the method I tend to prefer because it allows the user of the class to choose which method works best for them. You may be curious about the actual performance of these different methods. 1: Enter iterations: 2: 1000000 3:  4: Inheritance took 4 ms. 5: Events took 7 ms. 6: Interface delegation took 4 ms. 7: Lambda delegate took 5 ms. Before you get too caught up in the numbers, however, keep in mind that this is performance over over 1,000,000 iterations. Since they are all < 10 ms which boils down to fractions of a micro-second per iteration so really any of them are a fine choice performance wise. As such, I think the choice of what to do really boils down to what you're trying to do. Here's my guidelines: Inheritance should be used only when defining a collection of related types with implementation specific behaviors, it should not be used as a hook for users to add their own functionality. Events should be used when subscription is optional or multi-cast is desired. Interface delegation should be used when you wish to refer to implementing classes by the interface type or if the type requires several methods to be implemented. Delegate method delegation should be used when you only need to provide one method and do not need to refer to implementers by the interface name.

    Read the article

  • Singleton class design in C#, are these two classes equivalent?

    - by Oskar
    I was reading up on singleton class design in C# on this great resource and decided to go with alternative 4: public sealed class Singleton1 { static readonly Singleton1 _instance = new Singleton1(); static Singleton1() { } Singleton1() { } public static Singleton1 Instance { get { return _instance; } } } Now I wonder if this can be rewritten using auto properties like this? public sealed class Singleton2 { static Singleton2() { Instance = new Singleton2(); } Singleton2() { } public static Singleton2 Instance { get; private set; } } If its only a matter of readability I definitely prefer the second version, but I want to get it right.

    Read the article

  • OpenSSL "Seal" in C (or via shell)

    - by chpwn
    I'm working on porting some PHP code to C, that contacts a web API. The issue I've come across is that the PHP code uses the function openssl_seal(), but I can't seem to find any way to do the same thing in C or even via openssl in a call to system(). From the PHP manual on openssl_seal(): int openssl_seal ( string $data , string &$sealed_data , array &$env_keys , array $pub_key_ids ) openssl_seal() seals (encrypts) data by using RC4 with a randomly generated secret key. The key is encrypted with each of the public keys associated with the identifiers in pub_key_ids and each encrypted key is returned in env_keys . This means that one can send sealed data to multiple recipients (provided one has obtained their public keys). Each recipient must receive both the sealed data and the envelope key that was encrypted with the recipient's public key. What would be the best way to implement this? I'd really prefer not to call out to a PHP script every time, for obvious reasons.

    Read the article

  • C# Language Design: explicit interface implementation of an event

    - by ControlFlow
    Small question about C# language design :)) If I had an interface like this: interface IFoo { int Value { get; set; } } It's possible to explicitly implement such interface using C# 3.0 auto-implemented properties: sealed class Foo : IFoo { int IFoo.Value { get; set; } } But if I had an event in the interface: interface IFoo { event EventHandler Event; } And trying to explicitly implement it using field-like event: sealed class Foo : IFoo { event EventHandler IFoo.Event; } I will get the following compiler error: error CS0071: An explicit interface implementation of an event must use event accessor syntax I think that field-like events is the some kind of dualism for auto-implemented properties. So my question is: what is the design reason for such restriction done?

    Read the article

  • Deriving from a component and implementing IDisposable properly

    - by PaulH
    I have a Visual Studio 2008 C# .NET 2.0 CF project with an abstract class derived from Component. From that class, I derive several concrete classes (as in my example below). But, when I go to exit my Form, though the Form's Dispose() member is called and components.Dispose() is called, my components are never disposed. Can anybody suggest how I can fix this design? public abstract class SomeDisposableComponentBase : Component { private System.ComponentModel.IContainer components; protected SomeDisposableComponentBase() { Initializecomponent(); } protected SomeDisposableComponentBase(IContainer container) { container.Add(this); Initializecomponent(); } private void InitializeComponent() { components = new System.ComponentModel.Container(); } protected abstract void Foo(); #region IDisposable Members bool disposed_; /// Warning 60 CA1063 : Microsoft.Design : Ensure that 'SomeDisposableComponentBase.Dispose()' is declared as public and sealed.* public void Dispose() { // never called Dispose(true); GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { // never called if (!disposed_) { if (disposing && (components != null)) { components.Dispose(); } disposed_ = true; } base.Dispose(disposing); } #endregion } public SomeDisposableComponent : SomeDisposableComponentBase { public SomeDisposableComponent() : base() { } public SomeDisposableComponent(IContainer container) : base(container) { } protected override void Foo() { // Do something... } protected override void Dispose(bool disposing) { // never called base.Dispose(disposing); } } public partial class my_form : Form { private SomeDisposableComponentBase d_; public my_form() { InitializeComponent(); if (null == components) components = new System.ComponentModel.Container(); d_ = new SomeDisposableComponent(components); } /// exit button clicked private void Exit_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { this.Close(); } /// from the my_form.designer.cs protected override void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (disposing && (components != null)) { // this function is executed as expected when the form is closed components.Dispose(); } base.Dispose(disposing); } } *I note that FX-Cop is giving me a hint here. But, if I try to declare that function as sealed, I get the error: error CS0238: 'SomeDisposableComponentBase.Dispose()' cannot be sealed because it is not an override Declaring that function an override leads to: 'SomeDisposableComponentBase.Dispose()': cannot override inherited member 'System.ComponentModel.Component.Dispose()' because it is not marked virtual, abstract, or override Thanks, PaulH

    Read the article

  • .NET 4.0 Generic Invariant, Covariant, Contravariant

    - by Sameer Shariff
    Here's the scenario i am faced with: public abstract class Record { } public abstract class TableRecord : Record { } public abstract class LookupTableRecord : TableRecord { } public sealed class UserRecord : LookupTableRecord { } public interface IDataAccessLayer<TRecord> where TRecord : Record { } public interface ITableDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> : IDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> where TTableRecord : TableRecord { } public interface ILookupTableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> : ITableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> where TLookupTableRecord : LookupTableRecord { } public abstract class DataAccessLayer<TRecord> : IDataAccessLayer<TRecord> where TRecord : Record, new() { } public abstract class TableDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> : DataAccessLayer<TTableRecord>, ITableDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> where TTableRecord : TableRecord, new() { } public abstract class LookupTableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> : TableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord>, ILookupTableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> where TLookupTableRecord : LookupTableRecord, new() { } public sealed class UserDataAccessLayer : LookupTableDataAccessLayer<UserRecord> { } Now when i try to cast UserDataAccessLayer to it's generic base type ITableDataAccessLayer<TableRecord>, the compiler complains that it cannot implicitly convert the type.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to create nested classes in PHP as it is in C#?

    - by Edward Tanguay
    In C# you can have nested classes like this, which are useful if you have classes which do not have meaning outside the scope of one particular class, e.g. in a factory pattern: public abstract class BankAccount { private BankAccount() {} private sealed class SavingsAccount : BankAccount { ... } private sealed class CheckingAccount : BankAccount { ... } public BankAccount MakeSavingAccount() { ... } public BankAccount MakeCheckingAccount() { ... } } Is this possible in PHP? I've read that it was planned for PHP 5, then cancelled, then planned again, but can't find definitive info. Does anyone know how to create nested classes (classes within the scope of another class) as in the above C# example using PHP 5.3?

    Read the article

  • Rights Expiry Options in IRM 11g

    - by martin.abrahams
    Among the many enhancements in IRM 11g, we have introduced a couple of new rights expiry options that may be applied to any role. These options were supported in previous versions, but fell into the "advanced configuration" category. In 11g, the options can be applied simply by selecting a check-box in the properties of a role, as shown by the rather extreme example below, where the role allows access for just two minutes after they are sealed. The new options are: To define a role that expires automatically some period after it is assigned To define a role that evaluates expiry relative to the time that each document is sealed These options supplement the familiar options to allow open-ended access (limited by offline access and the ever-present option to revoke rights at any time) and the option to define time windows with specific start dates and end dates. The value of these options is easiest to illustrate with some publishing examples: You might define a role with a one year expiry to be assigned to users who purchase a one year subscription. For each individual user, the year would be calculated from the time that the role was assigned to them. You might define a role that allows documents to be accessed only for 24 hours from the time that they are published - perhaps as a preview mechanism designed to tempt users to sign up for a full subscription. Upon payment of a full fee, users can simply be reassigned a role that gives them greater access to exactly the same documents. In a corporate environment, you might use such roles for fixed term contractors or for workflows that involve information with a short lifespan, or perhaps as part of a compliance process that requires rights to be formally re-approved at intervals. Being role-based, the time constraints apply to any number of documents - including documents that have not yet been created. For example, a user with a one year subscription would have access to all documents published in the relevant classification during the year without any further configuration. Crucially, unlike other solutions, it is not the documents that expire, but the rights of particular users. Whereas some solutions make documents completely inaccessible for all users after expiry, Oracle IRM can allow some users to continue using documents while other users lose access. Equally crucially, a user whose rights have expired can always be granted fresh rights at any time - for example, because they renew their subscription or because a manager confirms that they still need the rights as part of a corporate compliance process. By applying expiry to rights rather than to documents, Oracle IRM avoids the risk of locking an organization out of its own information.

    Read the article

  • Do functional generics exist and what is the correct name for them if they do?

    - by voroninp
    Consider the following generic class: public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map: public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question: how can this be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the shortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<>: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structure should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exists in any programming language?

    Read the article

  • Do functional generics exist or what is the correct name for them if they do?

    - by voroninp
    Consider the following generic class public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question how this can be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the sortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structrue should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exist in any programming language?

    Read the article

  • Scala parser combinator runs out of memory

    - by user3217013
    I wrote the following parser in Scala using the parser combinators: import scala.util.parsing.combinator._ import scala.collection.Map import scala.io.StdIn object Keywords { val Define = "define" val True = "true" val False = "false" val If = "if" val Then = "then" val Else = "else" val Return = "return" val Pass = "pass" val Conj = ";" val OpenParen = "(" val CloseParen = ")" val OpenBrack = "{" val CloseBrack = "}" val Comma = "," val Plus = "+" val Minus = "-" val Times = "*" val Divide = "/" val Pow = "**" val And = "&&" val Or = "||" val Xor = "^^" val Not = "!" val Equals = "==" val NotEquals = "!=" val Assignment = "=" } //--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealed abstract class Op case object Plus extends Op case object Minus extends Op case object Times extends Op case object Divide extends Op case object Pow extends Op case object And extends Op case object Or extends Op case object Xor extends Op case object Not extends Op case object Equals extends Op case object NotEquals extends Op case object Assignment extends Op //--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealed abstract class Term case object TrueTerm extends Term case object FalseTerm extends Term case class FloatTerm(value : Float) extends Term case class StringTerm(value : String) extends Term case class Identifier(name : String) extends Term //--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealed abstract class Expression case class TermExp(term : Term) extends Expression case class UnaryOp(op : Op, exp : Expression) extends Expression case class BinaryOp(op : Op, left : Expression, right : Expression) extends Expression case class FuncApp(funcName : Term, args : List[Expression]) extends Expression //--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealed abstract class Statement case class ExpressionStatement(exp : Expression) extends Statement case class Pass() extends Statement case class Return(value : Expression) extends Statement case class AssignmentVar(variable : Term, exp : Expression) extends Statement case class IfThenElse(testBody : Expression, thenBody : Statement, elseBody : Statement) extends Statement case class Conjunction(left : Statement, right : Statement) extends Statement case class AssignmentFunc(functionName : Term, args : List[Term], body : Statement) extends Statement //--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- class myParser extends JavaTokenParsers { val keywordMap : Map[String, Op] = Map( Keywords.Plus -> Plus, Keywords.Minus -> Minus, Keywords.Times -> Times, Keywords.Divide -> Divide, Keywords.Pow -> Pow, Keywords.And -> And, Keywords.Or -> Or, Keywords.Xor -> Xor, Keywords.Not -> Not, Keywords.Equals -> Equals, Keywords.NotEquals -> NotEquals, Keywords.Assignment -> Assignment ) def floatTerm : Parser[Term] = decimalNumber ^^ { case x => FloatTerm( x.toFloat ) } def stringTerm : Parser[Term] = stringLiteral ^^ { case str => StringTerm(str) } def identifier : Parser[Term] = ident ^^ { case value => Identifier(value) } def boolTerm : Parser[Term] = (Keywords.True | Keywords.False) ^^ { case Keywords.True => TrueTerm case Keywords.False => FalseTerm } def simpleTerm : Parser[Expression] = (boolTerm | floatTerm | stringTerm) ^^ { case term => TermExp(term) } def argument = expression def arguments_aux : Parser[List[Expression]] = (argument <~ Keywords.Comma) ~ arguments ^^ { case arg ~ argList => arg :: argList } def arguments = arguments_aux | { argument ^^ { case arg => List(arg) } } def funcAppArgs : Parser[List[Expression]] = funcEmptyArgs | ( Keywords.OpenParen ~> arguments <~ Keywords.CloseParen ^^ { case args => args.foldRight(List[Expression]()) ( (a,b) => a :: b ) } ) def funcApp = identifier ~ funcAppArgs ^^ { case funcName ~ argList => FuncApp(funcName, argList) } def variableTerm : Parser[Expression] = identifier ^^ { case name => TermExp(name) } def atomic_expression = simpleTerm | funcApp | variableTerm def paren_expression : Parser[Expression] = Keywords.OpenParen ~> expression <~ Keywords.CloseParen def unary_operation : Parser[String] = Keywords.Not def unary_expression : Parser[Expression] = operation(0) ~ expression(0) ^^ { case op ~ exp => UnaryOp(keywordMap(op), exp) } def operation(precedence : Int) : Parser[String] = precedence match { case 0 => Keywords.Not case 1 => Keywords.Pow case 2 => Keywords.Times | Keywords.Divide | Keywords.And case 3 => Keywords.Plus | Keywords.Minus | Keywords.Or | Keywords.Xor case 4 => Keywords.Equals | Keywords.NotEquals case _ => throw new Exception("No operations with this precedence.") } def binary_expression(precedence : Int) : Parser[Expression] = precedence match { case 0 => throw new Exception("No operation with zero precedence.") case n => (expression (n-1)) ~ operation(n) ~ (expression (n)) ^^ { case left ~ op ~ right => BinaryOp(keywordMap(op), left, right) } } def expression(precedence : Int) : Parser[Expression] = precedence match { case 0 => unary_expression | paren_expression | atomic_expression case n => binary_expression(n) | expression(n-1) } def expression : Parser[Expression] = expression(4) def expressionStmt : Parser[Statement] = expression ^^ { case exp => ExpressionStatement(exp) } def assignment : Parser[Statement] = (identifier <~ Keywords.Assignment) ~ expression ^^ { case varName ~ exp => AssignmentVar(varName, exp) } def ifthen : Parser[Statement] = ((Keywords.If ~ Keywords.OpenParen) ~> expression <~ Keywords.CloseParen) ~ ((Keywords.Then ~ Keywords.OpenBrack) ~> statements <~ Keywords.CloseBrack) ^^ { case ifBody ~ thenBody => IfThenElse(ifBody, thenBody, Pass()) } def ifthenelse : Parser[Statement] = ((Keywords.If ~ Keywords.OpenParen) ~> expression <~ Keywords.CloseParen) ~ ((Keywords.Then ~ Keywords.OpenBrack) ~> statements <~ Keywords.CloseBrack) ~ ((Keywords.Else ~ Keywords.OpenBrack) ~> statements <~ Keywords.CloseBrack) ^^ { case ifBody ~ thenBody ~ elseBody => IfThenElse(ifBody, thenBody, elseBody) } def pass : Parser[Statement] = Keywords.Pass ^^^ { Pass() } def returnStmt : Parser[Statement] = Keywords.Return ~> expression ^^ { case exp => Return(exp) } def statement : Parser[Statement] = ((pass | returnStmt | assignment | expressionStmt) <~ Keywords.Conj) | ifthenelse | ifthen def statements_aux : Parser[Statement] = statement ~ statements ^^ { case st ~ sts => Conjunction(st, sts) } def statements : Parser[Statement] = statements_aux | statement def funcDefBody : Parser[Statement] = Keywords.OpenBrack ~> statements <~ Keywords.CloseBrack def funcEmptyArgs = Keywords.OpenParen ~ Keywords.CloseParen ^^^ { List() } def funcDefArgs : Parser[List[Term]] = funcEmptyArgs | Keywords.OpenParen ~> repsep(identifier, Keywords.Comma) <~ Keywords.CloseParen ^^ { case args => args.foldRight(List[Term]()) ( (a,b) => a :: b ) } def funcDef : Parser[Statement] = (Keywords.Define ~> identifier) ~ funcDefArgs ~ funcDefBody ^^ { case funcName ~ funcArgs ~ body => AssignmentFunc(funcName, funcArgs, body) } def funcDefAndStatement : Parser[Statement] = funcDef | statement def funcDefAndStatements_aux : Parser[Statement] = funcDefAndStatement ~ funcDefAndStatements ^^ { case stmt ~ stmts => Conjunction(stmt, stmts) } def funcDefAndStatements : Parser[Statement] = funcDefAndStatements_aux | funcDefAndStatement def parseProgram : Parser[Statement] = funcDefAndStatements def eval(input : String) = { parseAll(parseProgram, input) match { case Success(result, _) => result case Failure(m, _) => println(m) case _ => println("") } } } object Parser { def main(args : Array[String]) { val x : myParser = new myParser() println(args(0)) val lines = scala.io.Source.fromFile(args(0)).mkString println(x.eval(lines)) } } The problem is, when I run the parser on the following example it works fine: define foo(a) { if (!h(IM) && a) then { return 0; } if (a() && !h()) then { return 0; } } But when I add threes characters in the first if statement, it runs out of memory. This is absolutely blowing my mind. Can anyone help? (I suspect it has to do with repsep, but I am not sure.) define foo(a) { if (!h(IM) && a(1)) then { return 0; } if (a() && !h()) then { return 0; } } EDIT: Any constructive comments about my Scala style is also appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Service Discovery in WCF 4.0 &ndash; Part 1

    - by Shaun
    When designing a service oriented architecture (SOA) system, there will be a lot of services with many service contracts, endpoints and behaviors. Besides the client calling the service, in a large distributed system a service may invoke other services. In this case, one service might need to know the endpoints it invokes. This might not be a problem in a small system. But when you have more than 10 services this might be a problem. For example in my current product, there are around 10 services, such as the user authentication service, UI integration service, location service, license service, device monitor service, event monitor service, schedule job service, accounting service, player management service, etc..   Benefit of Discovery Service Since almost all my services need to invoke at least one other service. This would be a difficult task to make sure all services endpoints are configured correctly in every service. And furthermore, it would be a nightmare when a service changed its endpoint at runtime. Hence, we need a discovery service to remove the dependency (configuration dependency). A discovery service plays as a service dictionary which stores the relationship between the contracts and the endpoints for every service. By using the discovery service, when service X wants to invoke service Y, it just need to ask the discovery service where is service Y, then the discovery service will return all proper endpoints of service Y, then service X can use the endpoint to send the request to service Y. And when some services changed their endpoint address, all need to do is to update its records in the discovery service then all others will know its new endpoint. In WCF 4.0 Discovery it supports both managed proxy discovery mode and ad-hoc discovery mode. In ad-hoc mode there is no standalone discovery service. When a client wanted to invoke a service, it will broadcast an message (normally in UDP protocol) to the entire network with the service match criteria. All services which enabled the discovery behavior will receive this message and only those matched services will send their endpoint back to the client. The managed proxy discovery service works as I described above. In this post I will only cover the managed proxy mode, where there’s a discovery service. For more information about the ad-hoc mode please refer to the MSDN.   Service Announcement and Probe The main functionality of discovery service should be return the proper endpoint addresses back to the service who is looking for. In most cases the consume service (as a client) will send the contract which it wanted to request to the discovery service. And then the discovery service will find the endpoint and respond. Sometimes the contract and endpoint are not enough. It also contains versioning, extensions attributes. This post I will only cover the case includes contract and endpoint. When a client (or sometimes a service who need to invoke another service) need to connect to a target service, it will firstly request the discovery service through the “Probe” method with the criteria. Basically the criteria contains the contract type name of the target service. Then the discovery service will search its endpoint repository by the criteria. The repository might be a database, a distributed cache or a flat XML file. If it matches, the discovery service will grab the endpoint information (it’s called discovery endpoint metadata in WCF) and send back. And this is called “Probe”. Finally the client received the discovery endpoint metadata and will use the endpoint to connect to the target service. Besides the probe, discovery service should take the responsible to know there is a new service available when it goes online, as well as stopped when it goes offline. This feature is named “Announcement”. When a service started and stopped, it will announce to the discovery service. So the basic functionality of a discovery service should includes: 1, An endpoint which receive the service online message, and add the service endpoint information in the discovery repository. 2, An endpoint which receive the service offline message, and remove the service endpoint information from the discovery repository. 3, An endpoint which receive the client probe message, and return the matches service endpoints, and return the discovery endpoint metadata. WCF 4.0 discovery service just covers all these features in it's infrastructure classes.   Discovery Service in WCF 4.0 WCF 4.0 introduced a new assembly named System.ServiceModel.Discovery which has all necessary classes and interfaces to build a WS-Discovery compliant discovery service. It supports ad-hoc and managed proxy modes. For the case mentioned in this post, what we need to build is a standalone discovery service, which is the managed proxy discovery service mode. To build a managed discovery service in WCF 4.0 just create a new class inherits from the abstract class System.ServiceModel.Discovery.DiscoveryProxy. This class implemented and abstracted the procedures of service announcement and probe. And it exposes 8 abstract methods where we can implement our own endpoint register, unregister and find logic. These 8 methods are asynchronized, which means all invokes to the discovery service are asynchronously, for better service capability and performance. 1, OnBeginOnlineAnnouncement, OnEndOnlineAnnouncement: Invoked when a service sent the online announcement message. We need to add the endpoint information to the repository in this method. 2, OnBeginOfflineAnnouncement, OnEndOfflineAnnouncement: Invoked when a service sent the offline announcement message. We need to remove the endpoint information from the repository in this method. 3, OnBeginFind, OnEndFind: Invoked when a client sent the probe message that want to find the service endpoint information. We need to look for the proper endpoints by matching the client’s criteria through the repository in this method. 4, OnBeginResolve, OnEndResolve: Invoked then a client sent the resolve message. Different from the find method, when using resolve method the discovery service will return the exactly one service endpoint metadata to the client. In our example we will NOT implement this method.   Let’s create our own discovery service, inherit the base System.ServiceModel.Discovery.DiscoveryProxy. We also need to specify the service behavior in this class. Since the build-in discovery service host class only support the singleton mode, we must set its instance context mode to single. 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3: using System.Linq; 4: using System.Text; 5: using System.ServiceModel.Discovery; 6: using System.ServiceModel; 7:  8: namespace Phare.Service 9: { 10: [ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.Single, ConcurrencyMode = ConcurrencyMode.Multiple)] 11: public class ManagedProxyDiscoveryService : DiscoveryProxy 12: { 13: protected override IAsyncResult OnBeginFind(FindRequestContext findRequestContext, AsyncCallback callback, object state) 14: { 15: throw new NotImplementedException(); 16: } 17:  18: protected override IAsyncResult OnBeginOfflineAnnouncement(DiscoveryMessageSequence messageSequence, EndpointDiscoveryMetadata endpointDiscoveryMetadata, AsyncCallback callback, object state) 19: { 20: throw new NotImplementedException(); 21: } 22:  23: protected override IAsyncResult OnBeginOnlineAnnouncement(DiscoveryMessageSequence messageSequence, EndpointDiscoveryMetadata endpointDiscoveryMetadata, AsyncCallback callback, object state) 24: { 25: throw new NotImplementedException(); 26: } 27:  28: protected override IAsyncResult OnBeginResolve(ResolveCriteria resolveCriteria, AsyncCallback callback, object state) 29: { 30: throw new NotImplementedException(); 31: } 32:  33: protected override void OnEndFind(IAsyncResult result) 34: { 35: throw new NotImplementedException(); 36: } 37:  38: protected override void OnEndOfflineAnnouncement(IAsyncResult result) 39: { 40: throw new NotImplementedException(); 41: } 42:  43: protected override void OnEndOnlineAnnouncement(IAsyncResult result) 44: { 45: throw new NotImplementedException(); 46: } 47:  48: protected override EndpointDiscoveryMetadata OnEndResolve(IAsyncResult result) 49: { 50: throw new NotImplementedException(); 51: } 52: } 53: } Then let’s implement the online, offline and find methods one by one. WCF discovery service gives us full flexibility to implement the endpoint add, remove and find logic. For the demo purpose we will use an internal dictionary to store the services’ endpoint metadata. In the next post we will see how to serialize and store these information in database. Define a concurrent dictionary inside the service class since our it will be used in the multiple threads scenario. 1: [ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.Single, ConcurrencyMode = ConcurrencyMode.Multiple)] 2: public class ManagedProxyDiscoveryService : DiscoveryProxy 3: { 4: private ConcurrentDictionary<EndpointAddress, EndpointDiscoveryMetadata> _services; 5:  6: public ManagedProxyDiscoveryService() 7: { 8: _services = new ConcurrentDictionary<EndpointAddress, EndpointDiscoveryMetadata>(); 9: } 10: } Then we can simply implement the logic of service online and offline. 1: protected override IAsyncResult OnBeginOnlineAnnouncement(DiscoveryMessageSequence messageSequence, EndpointDiscoveryMetadata endpointDiscoveryMetadata, AsyncCallback callback, object state) 2: { 3: _services.AddOrUpdate(endpointDiscoveryMetadata.Address, endpointDiscoveryMetadata, (key, value) => endpointDiscoveryMetadata); 4: return new OnOnlineAnnouncementAsyncResult(callback, state); 5: } 6:  7: protected override void OnEndOnlineAnnouncement(IAsyncResult result) 8: { 9: OnOnlineAnnouncementAsyncResult.End(result); 10: } 11:  12: protected override IAsyncResult OnBeginOfflineAnnouncement(DiscoveryMessageSequence messageSequence, EndpointDiscoveryMetadata endpointDiscoveryMetadata, AsyncCallback callback, object state) 13: { 14: EndpointDiscoveryMetadata endpoint = null; 15: _services.TryRemove(endpointDiscoveryMetadata.Address, out endpoint); 16: return new OnOfflineAnnouncementAsyncResult(callback, state); 17: } 18:  19: protected override void OnEndOfflineAnnouncement(IAsyncResult result) 20: { 21: OnOfflineAnnouncementAsyncResult.End(result); 22: } Regards the find method, the parameter FindRequestContext.Criteria has a method named IsMatch, which can be use for us to evaluate which service metadata is satisfied with the criteria. So the implementation of find method would be like this. 1: protected override IAsyncResult OnBeginFind(FindRequestContext findRequestContext, AsyncCallback callback, object state) 2: { 3: _services.Where(s => findRequestContext.Criteria.IsMatch(s.Value)) 4: .Select(s => s.Value) 5: .All(meta => 6: { 7: findRequestContext.AddMatchingEndpoint(meta); 8: return true; 9: }); 10: return new OnFindAsyncResult(callback, state); 11: } 12:  13: protected override void OnEndFind(IAsyncResult result) 14: { 15: OnFindAsyncResult.End(result); 16: } As you can see, we checked all endpoints metadata in repository by invoking the IsMatch method. Then add all proper endpoints metadata into the parameter. Finally since all these methods are asynchronized we need some AsyncResult classes as well. Below are the base class and the inherited classes used in previous methods. 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3: using System.Linq; 4: using System.Text; 5: using System.Threading; 6:  7: namespace Phare.Service 8: { 9: abstract internal class AsyncResult : IAsyncResult 10: { 11: AsyncCallback callback; 12: bool completedSynchronously; 13: bool endCalled; 14: Exception exception; 15: bool isCompleted; 16: ManualResetEvent manualResetEvent; 17: object state; 18: object thisLock; 19:  20: protected AsyncResult(AsyncCallback callback, object state) 21: { 22: this.callback = callback; 23: this.state = state; 24: this.thisLock = new object(); 25: } 26:  27: public object AsyncState 28: { 29: get 30: { 31: return state; 32: } 33: } 34:  35: public WaitHandle AsyncWaitHandle 36: { 37: get 38: { 39: if (manualResetEvent != null) 40: { 41: return manualResetEvent; 42: } 43: lock (ThisLock) 44: { 45: if (manualResetEvent == null) 46: { 47: manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(isCompleted); 48: } 49: } 50: return manualResetEvent; 51: } 52: } 53:  54: public bool CompletedSynchronously 55: { 56: get 57: { 58: return completedSynchronously; 59: } 60: } 61:  62: public bool IsCompleted 63: { 64: get 65: { 66: return isCompleted; 67: } 68: } 69:  70: object ThisLock 71: { 72: get 73: { 74: return this.thisLock; 75: } 76: } 77:  78: protected static TAsyncResult End<TAsyncResult>(IAsyncResult result) 79: where TAsyncResult : AsyncResult 80: { 81: if (result == null) 82: { 83: throw new ArgumentNullException("result"); 84: } 85:  86: TAsyncResult asyncResult = result as TAsyncResult; 87:  88: if (asyncResult == null) 89: { 90: throw new ArgumentException("Invalid async result.", "result"); 91: } 92:  93: if (asyncResult.endCalled) 94: { 95: throw new InvalidOperationException("Async object already ended."); 96: } 97:  98: asyncResult.endCalled = true; 99:  100: if (!asyncResult.isCompleted) 101: { 102: asyncResult.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne(); 103: } 104:  105: if (asyncResult.manualResetEvent != null) 106: { 107: asyncResult.manualResetEvent.Close(); 108: } 109:  110: if (asyncResult.exception != null) 111: { 112: throw asyncResult.exception; 113: } 114:  115: return asyncResult; 116: } 117:  118: protected void Complete(bool completedSynchronously) 119: { 120: if (isCompleted) 121: { 122: throw new InvalidOperationException("This async result is already completed."); 123: } 124:  125: this.completedSynchronously = completedSynchronously; 126:  127: if (completedSynchronously) 128: { 129: this.isCompleted = true; 130: } 131: else 132: { 133: lock (ThisLock) 134: { 135: this.isCompleted = true; 136: if (this.manualResetEvent != null) 137: { 138: this.manualResetEvent.Set(); 139: } 140: } 141: } 142:  143: if (callback != null) 144: { 145: callback(this); 146: } 147: } 148:  149: protected void Complete(bool completedSynchronously, Exception exception) 150: { 151: this.exception = exception; 152: Complete(completedSynchronously); 153: } 154: } 155: } 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3: using System.Linq; 4: using System.Text; 5: using System.ServiceModel.Discovery; 6: using Phare.Service; 7:  8: namespace Phare.Service 9: { 10: internal sealed class OnOnlineAnnouncementAsyncResult : AsyncResult 11: { 12: public OnOnlineAnnouncementAsyncResult(AsyncCallback callback, object state) 13: : base(callback, state) 14: { 15: this.Complete(true); 16: } 17:  18: public static void End(IAsyncResult result) 19: { 20: AsyncResult.End<OnOnlineAnnouncementAsyncResult>(result); 21: } 22:  23: } 24:  25: sealed class OnOfflineAnnouncementAsyncResult : AsyncResult 26: { 27: public OnOfflineAnnouncementAsyncResult(AsyncCallback callback, object state) 28: : base(callback, state) 29: { 30: this.Complete(true); 31: } 32:  33: public static void End(IAsyncResult result) 34: { 35: AsyncResult.End<OnOfflineAnnouncementAsyncResult>(result); 36: } 37: } 38:  39: sealed class OnFindAsyncResult : AsyncResult 40: { 41: public OnFindAsyncResult(AsyncCallback callback, object state) 42: : base(callback, state) 43: { 44: this.Complete(true); 45: } 46:  47: public static void End(IAsyncResult result) 48: { 49: AsyncResult.End<OnFindAsyncResult>(result); 50: } 51: } 52:  53: sealed class OnResolveAsyncResult : AsyncResult 54: { 55: EndpointDiscoveryMetadata matchingEndpoint; 56:  57: public OnResolveAsyncResult(EndpointDiscoveryMetadata matchingEndpoint, AsyncCallback callback, object state) 58: : base(callback, state) 59: { 60: this.matchingEndpoint = matchingEndpoint; 61: this.Complete(true); 62: } 63:  64: public static EndpointDiscoveryMetadata End(IAsyncResult result) 65: { 66: OnResolveAsyncResult thisPtr = AsyncResult.End<OnResolveAsyncResult>(result); 67: return thisPtr.matchingEndpoint; 68: } 69: } 70: } Now we have finished the discovery service. The next step is to host it. The discovery service is a standard WCF service. So we can use ServiceHost on a console application, windows service, or in IIS as usual. The following code is how to host the discovery service we had just created in a console application. 1: static void Main(string[] args) 2: { 3: using (var host = new ServiceHost(new ManagedProxyDiscoveryService())) 4: { 5: host.Opened += (sender, e) => 6: { 7: host.Description.Endpoints.All((ep) => 8: { 9: Console.WriteLine(ep.ListenUri); 10: return true; 11: }); 12: }; 13:  14: try 15: { 16: // retrieve the announcement, probe endpoint and binding from configuration 17: var announcementEndpointAddress = new EndpointAddress(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["announcementEndpointAddress"]); 18: var probeEndpointAddress = new EndpointAddress(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["probeEndpointAddress"]); 19: var binding = Activator.CreateInstance(Type.GetType(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["bindingType"], true, true)) as Binding; 20: var announcementEndpoint = new AnnouncementEndpoint(binding, announcementEndpointAddress); 21: var probeEndpoint = new DiscoveryEndpoint(binding, probeEndpointAddress); 22: probeEndpoint.IsSystemEndpoint = false; 23: // append the service endpoint for announcement and probe 24: host.AddServiceEndpoint(announcementEndpoint); 25: host.AddServiceEndpoint(probeEndpoint); 26:  27: host.Open(); 28:  29: Console.WriteLine("Press any key to exit."); 30: Console.ReadKey(); 31: } 32: catch (Exception ex) 33: { 34: Console.WriteLine(ex.ToString()); 35: } 36: } 37:  38: Console.WriteLine("Done."); 39: Console.ReadKey(); 40: } What we need to notice is that, the discovery service needs two endpoints for announcement and probe. In this example I just retrieve them from the configuration file. I also specified the binding of these two endpoints in configuration file as well. 1: <?xml version="1.0"?> 2: <configuration> 3: <startup> 4: <supportedRuntime version="v4.0" sku=".NETFramework,Version=v4.0"/> 5: </startup> 6: <appSettings> 7: <add key="announcementEndpointAddress" value="net.tcp://localhost:10010/announcement"/> 8: <add key="probeEndpointAddress" value="net.tcp://localhost:10011/probe"/> 9: <add key="bindingType" value="System.ServiceModel.NetTcpBinding, System.ServiceModel, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089"/> 10: </appSettings> 11: </configuration> And this is the console screen when I ran my discovery service. As you can see there are two endpoints listening for announcement message and probe message.   Discoverable Service and Client Next, let’s create a WCF service that is discoverable, which means it can be found by the discovery service. To do so, we need to let the service send the online announcement message to the discovery service, as well as offline message before it shutdown. Just create a simple service which can make the incoming string to upper. The service contract and implementation would be like this. 1: [ServiceContract] 2: public interface IStringService 3: { 4: [OperationContract] 5: string ToUpper(string content); 6: } 1: public class StringService : IStringService 2: { 3: public string ToUpper(string content) 4: { 5: return content.ToUpper(); 6: } 7: } Then host this service in the console application. In order to make the discovery service easy to be tested the service address will be changed each time it’s started. 1: static void Main(string[] args) 2: { 3: var baseAddress = new Uri(string.Format("net.tcp://localhost:11001/stringservice/{0}/", Guid.NewGuid().ToString())); 4:  5: using (var host = new ServiceHost(typeof(StringService), baseAddress)) 6: { 7: host.Opened += (sender, e) => 8: { 9: Console.WriteLine("Service opened at {0}", host.Description.Endpoints.First().ListenUri); 10: }; 11:  12: host.AddServiceEndpoint(typeof(IStringService), new NetTcpBinding(), string.Empty); 13:  14: host.Open(); 15:  16: Console.WriteLine("Press any key to exit."); 17: Console.ReadKey(); 18: } 19: } Currently this service is NOT discoverable. We need to add a special service behavior so that it could send the online and offline message to the discovery service announcement endpoint when the host is opened and closed. WCF 4.0 introduced a service behavior named ServiceDiscoveryBehavior. When we specified the announcement endpoint address and appended it to the service behaviors this service will be discoverable. 1: var announcementAddress = new EndpointAddress(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["announcementEndpointAddress"]); 2: var announcementBinding = Activator.CreateInstance(Type.GetType(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["bindingType"], true, true)) as Binding; 3: var announcementEndpoint = new AnnouncementEndpoint(announcementBinding, announcementAddress); 4: var discoveryBehavior = new ServiceDiscoveryBehavior(); 5: discoveryBehavior.AnnouncementEndpoints.Add(announcementEndpoint); 6: host.Description.Behaviors.Add(discoveryBehavior); The ServiceDiscoveryBehavior utilizes the service extension and channel dispatcher to implement the online and offline announcement logic. In short, it injected the channel open and close procedure and send the online and offline message to the announcement endpoint.   On client side, when we have the discovery service, a client can invoke a service without knowing its endpoint. WCF discovery assembly provides a class named DiscoveryClient, which can be used to find the proper service endpoint by passing the criteria. In the code below I initialized the DiscoveryClient, specified the discovery service probe endpoint address. Then I created the find criteria by specifying the service contract I wanted to use and invoke the Find method. This will send the probe message to the discovery service and it will find the endpoints back to me. The discovery service will return all endpoints that matches the find criteria, which means in the result of the find method there might be more than one endpoints. In this example I just returned the first matched one back. In the next post I will show how to extend our discovery service to make it work like a service load balancer. 1: static EndpointAddress FindServiceEndpoint() 2: { 3: var probeEndpointAddress = new EndpointAddress(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["probeEndpointAddress"]); 4: var probeBinding = Activator.CreateInstance(Type.GetType(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["bindingType"], true, true)) as Binding; 5: var discoveryEndpoint = new DiscoveryEndpoint(probeBinding, probeEndpointAddress); 6:  7: EndpointAddress address = null; 8: FindResponse result = null; 9: using (var discoveryClient = new DiscoveryClient(discoveryEndpoint)) 10: { 11: result = discoveryClient.Find(new FindCriteria(typeof(IStringService))); 12: } 13:  14: if (result != null && result.Endpoints.Any()) 15: { 16: var endpointMetadata = result.Endpoints.First(); 17: address = endpointMetadata.Address; 18: } 19: return address; 20: } Once we probed the discovery service we will receive the endpoint. So in the client code we can created the channel factory from the endpoint and binding, and invoke to the service. When creating the client side channel factory we need to make sure that the client side binding should be the same as the service side. WCF discovery service can be used to find the endpoint for a service contract, but the binding is NOT included. This is because the binding was not in the WS-Discovery specification. In the next post I will demonstrate how to add the binding information into the discovery service. At that moment the client don’t need to create the binding by itself. Instead it will use the binding received from the discovery service. 1: static void Main(string[] args) 2: { 3: Console.WriteLine("Say something..."); 4: var content = Console.ReadLine(); 5: while (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(content)) 6: { 7: Console.WriteLine("Finding the service endpoint..."); 8: var address = FindServiceEndpoint(); 9: if (address == null) 10: { 11: Console.WriteLine("There is no endpoint matches the criteria."); 12: } 13: else 14: { 15: Console.WriteLine("Found the endpoint {0}", address.Uri); 16:  17: var factory = new ChannelFactory<IStringService>(new NetTcpBinding(), address); 18: factory.Opened += (sender, e) => 19: { 20: Console.WriteLine("Connecting to {0}.", factory.Endpoint.ListenUri); 21: }; 22: var proxy = factory.CreateChannel(); 23: using (proxy as IDisposable) 24: { 25: Console.WriteLine("ToUpper: {0} => {1}", content, proxy.ToUpper(content)); 26: } 27: } 28:  29: Console.WriteLine("Say something..."); 30: content = Console.ReadLine(); 31: } 32: } Similarly, the discovery service probe endpoint and binding were defined in the configuration file. 1: <?xml version="1.0"?> 2: <configuration> 3: <startup> 4: <supportedRuntime version="v4.0" sku=".NETFramework,Version=v4.0"/> 5: </startup> 6: <appSettings> 7: <add key="announcementEndpointAddress" value="net.tcp://localhost:10010/announcement"/> 8: <add key="probeEndpointAddress" value="net.tcp://localhost:10011/probe"/> 9: <add key="bindingType" value="System.ServiceModel.NetTcpBinding, System.ServiceModel, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089"/> 10: </appSettings> 11: </configuration> OK, now let’s have a test. Firstly start the discovery service, and then start our discoverable service. When it started it will announced to the discovery service and registered its endpoint into the repository, which is the local dictionary. And then start the client and type something. As you can see the client asked the discovery service for the endpoint and then establish the connection to the discoverable service. And more interesting, do NOT close the client console but terminate the discoverable service but press the enter key. This will make the service send the offline message to the discovery service. Then start the discoverable service again. Since we made it use a different address each time it started, currently it should be hosted on another address. If we enter something in the client we could see that it asked the discovery service and retrieve the new endpoint, and connect the the service.   Summary In this post I discussed the benefit of using the discovery service and the procedures of service announcement and probe. I also demonstrated how to leverage the WCF Discovery feature in WCF 4.0 to build a simple managed discovery service. For test purpose, in this example I used the in memory dictionary as the discovery endpoint metadata repository. And when finding I also just return the first matched endpoint back. I also hard coded the bindings between the discoverable service and the client. In next post I will show you how to solve the problem mentioned above, as well as some additional feature for production usage. You can download the code here.   Hope this helps, Shaun All documents and related graphics, codes are provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. Copyright © Shaun Ziyan Xu. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Doing your first mock with JustMock

    - by mehfuzh
    In this post, i will start with a  more traditional mocking example that  includes a fund transfer scenario between two different currency account using JustMock.Our target interface that we will be mocking looks similar to: public interface ICurrencyService {     float GetConversionRate(string fromCurrency, string toCurrency); } Moving forward the SUT or class that will be consuming the  service and will be invoked by user [provided that the ICurrencyService will be passed in a DI style] looks like: public class AccountService : IAccountService         {             private readonly ICurrencyService currencyService;               public AccountService(ICurrencyService currencyService)             {                 this.currencyService = currencyService;             }               #region IAccountService Members               public void TransferFunds(Account from, Account to, float amount)             {                 from.Withdraw(amount);                 float conversionRate = currencyService.GetConversionRate(from.Currency, to.Currency);                 float convertedAmount = amount * conversionRate;                 to.Deposit(convertedAmount);             }               #endregion         }   As, we can see there is a TransferFunds action implemented from IAccountService  takes in a source account from where it withdraws some money and a target account to where the transfer takes place using the provided conversion rate. Our first step is to create the mock. The syntax for creating your instance mocks is pretty much same and  is valid for all interfaces, non-sealed/sealed concrete instance classes. You can pass in additional stuffs like whether its an strict mock or not, by default all the mocks in JustMock are loose, you can use it as default valued objects or stubs as well. ICurrencyService currencyService = Mock.Create<ICurrencyService>(); Using JustMock, setting up your expectations and asserting them always goes with Mock.Arrang|Assert and this is pretty much same syntax no matter what type of mocking you are doing. Therefore,  in the above scenario we want to make sure that the conversion rate always returns 2.20F when converting from GBP to CAD. To do so we need to arrange in the following way: Mock.Arrange(() => currencyService.GetConversionRate("GBP", "CAD")).Returns(2.20f).MustBeCalled(); Here, I have additionally marked the mock call as must. That means it should be invoked anywhere in the code before we do Mock.Assert, we can also assert mocks directly though lamda expressions  but the more general Mock.Assert(mocked) will assert only the setups that are marked as "MustBeCalled()”. Now, coming back to the main topic , as we setup the mock, now its time to act on it. Therefore, first we create our account service class and create our from and to accounts respectively. var accountService = new AccountService(currencyService);   var canadianAccount = new Account(0, "CAD"); var britishAccount = new Account(0, "GBP"); Next, we add some money to the GBP  account: britishAccount.Deposit(100); Finally, we do our transfer by the following: accountService.TransferFunds(britishAccount, canadianAccount, 100); Once, everything is completed, we need to make sure that things were as it is we have expected, so its time for assertions.Here, we first do the general assertions: Assert.Equal(0, britishAccount.Balance); Assert.Equal(220, canadianAccount.Balance); Following, we do our mock assertion,  as have marked the call as “MustBeCalled” it will make sure that our mock is actually invoked. Moreover, we can add filters like how many times our expected mock call has occurred that will be covered in coming posts. Mock.Assert(currencyService); So far, that actually concludes our  first  mock with JustMock and do stay tuned for more. Enjoy!!

    Read the article

  • Why you shouldn't add methods to interfaces in APIs

    - by Simon Cooper
    It is an oft-repeated maxim that you shouldn't add methods to a publically-released interface in an API. Recently, I was hit hard when this wasn't followed. As part of the work on ApplicationMetrics, I've been implementing auto-reporting of MVC action methods; whenever an action was called on a controller, ApplicationMetrics would automatically report it without the developer needing to add manual ReportEvent calls. Fortunately, MVC provides easy hook when a controller is created, letting me log when it happens - the IControllerFactory interface. Now, the dll we provide to instrument an MVC webapp has to be compiled against .NET 3.5 and MVC 1, as the lowest common denominator. This MVC 1 dll will still work when used in an MVC 2, 3 or 4 webapp because all MVC 2+ webapps have a binding redirect redirecting all references to previous versions of System.Web.Mvc to the correct version, and type forwards taking care of any moved types in the new assemblies. Or at least, it should. IControllerFactory In MVC 1 and 2, IControllerFactory was defined as follows: public interface IControllerFactory { IController CreateController(RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); void ReleaseController(IController controller); } So, to implement the logging controller factory, we simply wrap the existing controller factory: internal sealed class LoggingControllerFactory : IControllerFactory { private readonly IControllerFactory m_CurrentController; public LoggingControllerFactory(IControllerFactory currentController) { m_CurrentController = currentController; } public IController CreateController( RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName) { // log the controller being used FeatureSessionData.ReportEvent("Controller used:", controllerName); return m_CurrentController.CreateController(requestContext, controllerName); } public void ReleaseController(IController controller) { m_CurrentController.ReleaseController(controller); } } Easy. This works as expected in MVC 1 and 2. However, in MVC 3 this type was throwing a TypeLoadException, saying a method wasn't implemented. It turns out that, in MVC 3, the definition of IControllerFactory was changed to this: public interface IControllerFactory { IController CreateController(RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); SessionStateBehavior GetControllerSessionBehavior( RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName); void ReleaseController(IController controller); } There's a new method in the interface. So when our MVC 1 dll was redirected to reference System.Web.Mvc v3, LoggingControllerFactory tried to implement version 3 of IControllerFactory, was missing the GetControllerSessionBehaviour method, and so couldn't be loaded by the CLR. Implementing the new method Fortunately, there was a workaround. Because interface methods are normally implemented implicitly in the CLR, if we simply declare a virtual method matching the signature of the new method in MVC 3, then it will be ignored in MVC 1 and 2 and implement the extra method in MVC 3: internal sealed class LoggingControllerFactory : IControllerFactory { ... public virtual SessionStateBehaviour GetControllerSessionBehaviour( RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName) {} ... } However, this also has problems - the SessionStateBehaviour type only exists in .NET 4, and we're limited to .NET 3.5 by support for MVC 1 and 2. This means that the only solutions to support all MVC versions are: Construct the LoggingControllerFactory type at runtime using reflection Produce entirely separate dlls for MVC 1&2 and MVC 3. Ugh. And all because of that blasted extra method! Another solution? Fortunately, in this case, there is a third option - System.Web.Mvc also provides a DefaultControllerFactory type that can provide the implementation of GetControllerSessionBehaviour for us in MVC 3, while still allowing us to override CreateController and ReleaseController. However, this does mean that LoggingControllerFactory won't be able to wrap any calls to GetControllerSessionBehaviour. This is an acceptable bug, given the other options, as very few developers will be overriding GetControllerSessionBehaviour in their own custom controller factory. So, if you're providing an interface as part of an API, then please please please don't add methods to it. Especially if you don't provide a 'default' implementing type. Any code compiled against the previous version that can't be updated will have some very tough decisions to make to support both versions.

    Read the article

  • An Unusual UpdatePanel

    - by João Angelo
    The code you are about to see was mostly to prove a point, to myself, and probably has limited applicability. Nonetheless, in the remote possibility this is useful to someone here it goes… So this is a control that acts like a normal UpdatePanel where all child controls are registered as postback triggers except for a single control specified by the TriggerControlID property. You could basically achieve the same thing by registering all controls as postback triggers in the regular UpdatePanel. However with this, that process is performed automatically. Finally, here is the code: public sealed class SingleAsyncTriggerUpdatePanel : WebControl, INamingContainer { public string TriggerControlID { get; set; } [TemplateInstance(TemplateInstance.Single)] [PersistenceMode(PersistenceMode.InnerProperty)] public ITemplate ContentTemplate { get; set; } public override ControlCollection Controls { get { this.EnsureChildControls(); return base.Controls; } } protected override void CreateChildControls() { if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(this.TriggerControlID)) throw new InvalidOperationException( "The TriggerControlId property must be set."); this.Controls.Clear(); var updatePanel = new UpdatePanel() { ID = string.Concat(this.ID, "InnerUpdatePanel"), ChildrenAsTriggers = false, UpdateMode = UpdatePanelUpdateMode.Conditional, ContentTemplate = this.ContentTemplate }; updatePanel.Triggers.Add(new SingleControlAsyncUpdatePanelTrigger { ControlID = this.TriggerControlID }); this.Controls.Add(updatePanel); } } internal sealed class SingleControlAsyncUpdatePanelTrigger : UpdatePanelControlTrigger { private Control target; private ScriptManager scriptManager; public Control Target { get { if (this.target == null) { this.target = this.FindTargetControl(true); } return this.target; } } public ScriptManager ScriptManager { get { if (this.scriptManager == null) { var page = base.Owner.Page; if (page != null) { this.scriptManager = ScriptManager.GetCurrent(page); } } return this.scriptManager; } } protected override bool HasTriggered() { string asyncPostBackSourceElementID = this.ScriptManager.AsyncPostBackSourceElementID; if (asyncPostBackSourceElementID == this.Target.UniqueID) return true; return asyncPostBackSourceElementID.StartsWith( string.Concat(this.target.UniqueID, "$"), StringComparison.Ordinal); } protected override void Initialize() { base.Initialize(); foreach (Control control in FlattenControlHierarchy(this.Owner.Controls)) { if (control == this.Target) continue; bool isApplicableControl = false; isApplicableControl |= control is INamingContainer; isApplicableControl |= control is IPostBackDataHandler; isApplicableControl |= control is IPostBackEventHandler; if (isApplicableControl) { this.ScriptManager.RegisterPostBackControl(control); } } } private static IEnumerable<Control> FlattenControlHierarchy( ControlCollection collection) { foreach (Control control in collection) { yield return control; if (control.Controls.Count > 0) { foreach (Control child in FlattenControlHierarchy(control.Controls)) { yield return child; } } } } } You can use it like this, meaning that only the B2 button will trigger an async postback: <cc:SingleAsyncTriggerUpdatePanel ID="Test" runat="server" TriggerControlID="B2"> <ContentTemplate> <asp:Button ID="B1" Text="B1" runat="server" OnClick="Button_Click" /> <asp:Button ID="B2" Text="B2" runat="server" OnClick="Button_Click" /> <asp:Button ID="B3" Text="B3" runat="server" OnClick="Button_Click" /> <asp:Label ID="LInner" Text="LInner" runat="server" /> </ContentTemplate> </cc:SingleAsyncTriggerUpdatePanel>

    Read the article

  • C# and F# lambda expressions code generation

    - by ControlFlow
    Let's look at the code, generated by F# for simple function: let map_add valueToAdd xs = xs |> Seq.map (fun x -> x + valueToAdd) The generated code for lambda expression (instance of F# functional value) will looks like this: [Serializable] internal class map_add@3 : FSharpFunc<int, int> { public int valueToAdd; internal map_add@3(int valueToAdd) { this.valueToAdd = valueToAdd; } public override int Invoke(int x) { return (x + this.valueToAdd); } } And look at nearly the same C# code: using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; static class Program { static IEnumerable<int> SelectAdd(IEnumerable<int> source, int valueToAdd) { return source.Select(x => x + valueToAdd); } } And the generated code for the C# lambda expression: [CompilerGenerated] private sealed class <>c__DisplayClass1 { public int valueToAdd; public int <SelectAdd>b__0(int x) { return (x + this.valueToAdd); } } So I have some questions: Why does F#-generated class is not marked as sealed? Why does F#-generated class contains public fields since F# doesn't allows mutable closures? Why does F# generated class has the constructor? It may be perfectly initialized with the public fields... Why does C#-generated class is not marked as [Serializable]? Also classes generated for F# sequence expressions are also became [Serializable] and classes for C# iterators are not.

    Read the article

  • Using singleton instead of a global static instance

    - by Farstucker
    I ran into a problem today and a friend recommended I use a global static instance or more elegantly a singleton pattern. I spent a few hours reading about singletons but a few things still escape me. Background: What Im trying to accomplish is creating an instance of an API and use this one instance in all my classes (as opposed to making a new connection, etc). There seems to be about 100 ways of creating a singleton but with some help from yoda I found some thread safe examples. ..so given the following code: public sealed class Singleton { public static Singleton Instance { get; private set; } private Singleton() { APIClass api = new APIClass(); //Can this be done? } static Singleton() { Instance = new Singleton(); } } How/Where would you instantiate the this new class and how should it be called from a separate class? EDIT: I realize the Singleton class can be called with something like Singleton obj1 = Singleton.Instance(); but would I be able to access the methods within the APIs Class (ie. obj1.Start)? (not that I need to, just asking) EDIT #2: I might have been a bit premature in checking the answer but I do have one small thing that is still causing me problems. The API is launching just fine, unfortunately Im able to launch two instances? New Code public sealed class SingletonAPI { public static SingletonAPI Instance { get; private set; } private SingletonAPI() {} static SingletonAPI() { Instance = new SingletonAPI(); } // API method: public void Start() { API myAPI = new API();} } but if I try to do something like this... SingletonAPI api = SingletonAPI.Instance; api.Start(); SingletonAPI api2 = SingletonAPI.Instance; // This was just for testing. api2.Start(); I get an error saying that I cannot start more than one instance.

    Read the article

  • Operation is not valid due to the current state of the object?

    - by Bill
    I am programming in C#; the code was working about a week ago, however it throws an exception and I don't understand at all what could be wrong with it. Var root = new CalculationNode(); -> Throw exception. In the call stack thats the only thing listed, I've been told that it could be that I need a clean build, but I am open to any ideas or suggestions. Thanks, -Bill Update: Exception's Detail System.InvalidOperationException was unhandled by user code Message=Operation is not valid due to the current state of the object. Source=Calculator.Logic StackTrace: at ~.Calculator.Logic.MyBaseExpressionParser.Parse(String expression) in ~\Source\Calculator.Logic\MyBaseExpressionParser.cs:line 44 at ~.Calculator.Logic.Tests.MyBaseCalculatorServiceTests.BasicMathDivision() in ~\Projects\Tests\Calculator.Logic.Tests\MyBaseCalculatorServiceTests.cs:line 60 InnerException: CalculationNode's code: public sealed calss CalculationNode { public CalculationNode() { this.Left = null; this.Right = null; this.Element = new CalculationElement(); } public CalculationNode Left {get;set;} public CalculationNode Right {get;set;} public CalculationElement Element {get; set;} } CalculationElement's code: public sealed class CalculationElement { public CalculationElement() { Value = string.Empty; IsOperator = false; } public string Value {get; set} public bool IsOperator {get; set} }

    Read the article

  • Liskov Substition and Composition

    - by FlySwat
    Let say I have a class like this: public sealed class Foo { public void Bar { // Do Bar Stuff } } And I want to extend it to add something beyond what an extension method could do....My only option is composition: public class SuperFoo { private Foo _internalFoo; public SuperFoo() { _internalFoo = new Foo(); } public void Bar() { _internalFoo.Bar(); } public void Baz() { // Do Baz Stuff } } While this works, it is a lot of work...however I still run into a problem: public void AcceptsAFoo(Foo a) I can pass in a Foo here, but not a super Foo, because C# has no idea that SuperFoo truly does qualify in the Liskov Substitution sense...This means that my extended class via composition is of very limited use. So, the only way to fix it is to hope that the original API designers left an interface laying around: public interface IFoo { public Bar(); } public sealed class Foo : IFoo { // etc } Now, I can implement IFoo on SuperFoo (Which since SuperFoo already implements Foo, is just a matter of changing the signature). public class SuperFoo : IFoo And in the perfect world, the methods that consume Foo would consume IFoo's: public void AcceptsAFoo(IFoo a) Now, C# understands the relationship between SuperFoo and Foo due to the common interface and all is well. The big problem is that .NET seals lots of classes that would occasionally be nice to extend, and they don't usually implement a common interface, so API methods that take a Foo would not accept a SuperFoo and you can't add an overload. So, for all the composition fans out there....How do you get around this limitation? The only thing I can think of is to expose the internal Foo publicly, so that you can pass it on occasion, but that seems messy.

    Read the article

  • UK Connected Systems User Group - Udi Dahan Event Topic change

    - by Michael Stephenson
    Hi Just wanted to get the word out about a change to the may user group event.  Udi Dahan will present a new topic which he has not presented in the UK before.  Details below. To register for this event please refer to: http://ukconnectedsystemsusergroup.org/UpcomingEvents.aspx Title: High Availability - A Contrarian View   Abstract: Many developers are aware of the importance of high availability, critically analyzing any single points of failure in the infrastructure. Those same developers rarely give a second thought to the periods of time when a system is being upgraded. Even if all the servers are running, most systems cannot function in-between versions. Yet with the increased pace of business, users are demanding ever more frequent releases. The poor maintenance programmers and system administrators are left holding the bag long after the architecture that sealed their fate was formulated. Join Udi for some different perspectives on high availability - architecture and methodology for the real world.

    Read the article

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