Search Results

Search found 609 results on 25 pages for 'opennetcf ioc'.

Page 4/25 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How do the major C# DI/IoC frameworks compare?

    - by Slomojo
    At the risk of stepping into holy war territory, What are the strengths and weaknesses of these popular DI/IoC frameworks, and could one easily be considered the best? ..: Ninject Unity Castle.Windsor Autofac StructureMap Are there any other DI/IoC Frameworks for C# that I haven't listed here? In context of my use case, I'm building a client WPF app, and a WCF/SQL services infrastructure, ease of use (especially in terms of clear and concise syntax), consistent documentation, good community support and performance are all important factors in my choice. Update: The resources and duplicate questions cited appear to be out of date, can someone with knowledge of all these frameworks come forward and provide some real insight? I realise that most opinion on this subject is likely to be biased, but I am hoping that someone has taken the time to study all these frameworks and have at least a generally objective comparison. I am quite willing to make my own investigations if this hasn't been done before, but I assumed this was something at least a few people had done already. Second Update: If you do have experience with more than one DI/IoC container, please rank and summarise the pros and cons of those, thank you. This isn't an exercise in discovering all the obscure little containers that people have made, I'm looking for comparisons between the popular (and active) frameworks.

    Read the article

  • How to manage IoC containers in tests?

    - by frosty
    I'm very new to testing and IoC containers and have two projects: MySite.Website (MVC) MySite.WebsiteTest Currently I have an IoC container in my website. Should I recreate another IoC container for my test? Or is there a way to use the IoC in both?

    Read the article

  • How to not pass around the container when using IoC in Winforms

    - by L2Type
    I'm new to the world of IoC and having a problem with implementing it in a Winforms application. I have an extremely basic application Winform application that uses MVC, it is one controller that does all the work and a working dialog (obviously with a controller). So I load all my classes in to my IoC container in program.cs and create the main form controller using the container. But this is where I am having problems, I only want to create the working dialog controller when it's used and inside a using statement. At first I passed in the container but I've read this is bad practice and more over the container is a static and I want to unit test this class. So how do you create classes in a unit test friendly way without passing in the container, I was considering the abstract factory pattern but that alone would solve my problem without using the IoC. I'm not using any famous framework, I borrowed a basic one from this blog post http://www.kenegozi.com/Blog/2008/01/17/its-my-turn-to-build-an-ioc-container-in-15-minutes-and-33-lines.aspx How do I do this with IoC? Is this the wrong use for IoC?

    Read the article

  • Which single IoC/DI container would you recommend using and why?

    - by Rob G
    I'm asking this question because it's a good way to gauge how the community at large feels about the various containers/frameworks and why. Also, whilst my expertise may lie in .Net development, I am very interested in which frameworks are popular (and why) in other languages. If I feel the need to start digging into Java for instance, then I'd like to hit the ground running with good (comfortable) knowledge that I'm starting in the right direction. Does Ruby even need one with all its magnificent dynamicism? I have my own opinions on the .Net front, and will probably add my own personal favourite in an answer below, but I'm interested in all languages and opinions here. With all that in mind, could you please state only one IoC/DI framework that you use and recommend with the language of choice (Java/Ruby/.Net/Smalltalk etc.) and your reasoning for your choice, and if someone has already answered your particular flavour, then you can just vote it up and add comments to it so that anyone looking for advice in future and see which frameworks are more than likely to work for them once they read your reasoning. I'm hoping that over time, the best ones will bubble up to the top. I realise that this question doesn't have only one correct answer, so I won't be choosing one - the community will decide which framework gets the most votes and why. Of course, if you really feel strongly opposed to a particular brand, you could take the reputation hit and vote it down too, and this question can serve as a true wiki-style entry for research into this field. Remember, only one IoC per answer you write please - if you feel the need to promote two frameworks, then write two answers with your reasoning inside for each choice - then others in the community can agree or disagree with you.

    Read the article

  • How should I be using IoC in this winform piece of code?

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, I've got a winform app in visual studio 2010. My app does the following Get a list of files which I need to read the data then insert into a database. For each file, read data and insert into DB. So .. this is the code i have. var list = _repository.GetFileList(); if (list != null) { int i = 0; foreach(var file in list) { i++; var service = new MyService(i, _repository); service.ParseAndSave(); } } So i was hoping to have a new repository for each 'service' i create. Firstly, i'm not sure if I should be using IoC in this case. I believe I should be because then i don't need to tightly couple this winform to a repository. Secondly, I've tried using a Singleton repo, which I don't want and can confirm that it kills that code (crashes with an exception). Some other notes (which shouldn't impact this question) - Using Entity Framework for ASP.NET 4. - Using StructureMap for IoC Can someone help, please?

    Read the article

  • Talks Submitted for Ann Arbor Day of .NET 2010

    - by PSteele
    Just submitted my session abstracts for Ann Arbor's Day of .NET 2010.   Getting up to speed with .NET 3.5 -- Just in time for 4.0! Yes, C# 4.0 is just around the corner.  But if you haven't had the chance to use C# 3.5 extensively, this session will start from the ground up with the new features of 3.5.  We'll assume everyone is coming from C# 2.0.  This session will show you the details of extension methods, partial methods and more.  We'll also show you how LINQ -- Language Integrated Query -- can help decrease your development time and increase your code's readability.  If time permits, we'll look at some .NET 4.0 features, but the goal is to get you up to speed on .NET 3.5.   Go Ahead and Mock Me! When testing specific parts of your application, there can be a lot of external dependencies required to make your tests work.  Writing fake or mock objects that act as stand-ins for the real dependencies can waste a lot of time.  This is where mocking frameworks come in.  In this session, Patrick Steele will introduce you to Rhino Mocks, a popular mocking framework for .NET.  You'll see how a mocking framework can make writing unit tests easier and leads to less brittle unit tests.   Inversion of Control: Who's got control and why is it being inverted? No doubt you've heard of "Inversion of Control".  If not, maybe you've heard the term "Dependency Injection"?  The two usually go hand-in-hand.  Inversion of Control (IoC) along with Dependency Injection (DI) helps simplify the connections and lifetime of all of the dependent objects in the software you write.  In this session, Patrick Steele will introduce you to the concepts of IoC and DI and will show you how to use a popular IoC container (Castle Windsor) to help simplify the way you build software and how your objects interact with each other. If you're interested in speaking, hurry up and get your submissions in!  The deadline is Monday, April 5th! Technorati Tags: .NET,Ann Arbor,Day of .NET

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection Confusion

    - by James
    I think I have a decent grasp of what Dependency Inversion principle (DIP) is, my confusion is more around dependency injection. My understanding is the whole point of DI is to decouple parts of an application, to allow changes in one part without effecting another, assuming the interface does not change. For examples sake, we have this public class MyClass(IMyInterface interface) { public MyClass { interface.DoSomething(); } } public interface IMyInterface { void DoSomething(); } How is this var iocContainer = new UnityContainer(); iocContainer.Resolve<MyClass>(); better practice than doing this //if multiple implementations are possible, could use a factory here. IMyInterface interface = new InterfaceImplementation(); var myClass = new MyClass(interface); It may be I am missing a very important point, but I am failing to see what is gained. I am aware that using an IOC container I can easily handle an objects life cycle, which is a +1 but I don't think that is core to what IOC is about.

    Read the article

  • how to implement IOC without a global static service?

    - by Michel
    Hi, we want to use Unity for IOC. All i've seen is the implementation that there is one global static service which holds a reference to the Unity container, which registers all interface/class combinations and every class asks that object: give me an implementation for Ithis or IThat. Frequently i see a response that this pattern is not good because it leads to a dependency from ALL classes to this service. But what i don't see often, is: what is the alternative way? Michel

    Read the article

  • Can I have conditional construction of classes when using IoC.Resolve ?

    - by Corpsekicker
    I have a service class which has overloaded constructors. One constructor has 5 parameters and the other has 4. Before I call, var service = IoC.Resolve<IService>(); I want to do a test and based on the result of this test, resolve service using a specific constructor. In other words, bool testPassed = CheckCertainConditions(); if (testPassed) { //Resolve service using 5 paramater constructor } else { //Resolve service using 4 parameter constructor //If I use 5 parameter constructor under these conditions I will have epic fail. } Is there a way I can specify which one I want to use?

    Read the article

  • IoC/DI in the face of winforms and other generated code

    - by Kaleb Pederson
    When using dependency injection (DI) and inversion of control (IoC) objects will typically have a constructor that accepts the set of dependencies required for the object to function properly. For example, if I have a form that requires a service to populate a combo box you might see something like this: // my files public interface IDataService { IList<MyData> GetData(); } public interface IComboDataService { IList<MyComboData> GetComboData(); } public partial class PopulatedForm : BaseForm { private IDataService service; public PopulatedForm(IDataService service) { //... InitializeComponent(); } } This works fine at the top level, I just use my IoC container to resolve the dependencies: var form = ioc.Resolve<PopulatedForm>(); But in the face of generated code, this gets harder. In winforms a second file composing the rest of the partial class is generated. This file references other components, such as custom controls, and uses no-args constructors to create such controls: // generated file: PopulatedForm.Designer.cs public partial class PopulatedForm { private void InitializeComponent() { this.customComboBox = new UserCreatedComboBox(); // customComboBox has an IComboDataService dependency } } Since this is generated code, I can't pass in the dependencies and there's no easy way to have my IoC container automatically inject all the dependencies. One solution is to pass in the dependencies of each child component to PopulatedForm even though it may not need them directly, such as with the IComboDataService required by the UserCreatedComboBox. I then have the responsibility to make sure that the dependencies are provided through various properties or setter methods. Then, my PopulatedForm constructor might look as follows: public PopulatedForm(IDataService service, IComboDataService comboDataService) { this.service = service; InitializeComponent(); this.customComboBox.ComboDataService = comboDataService; } Another possible solution is to have the no-args constructor to do the necessary resolution: public class UserCreatedComboBox { private IComboDataService comboDataService; public UserCreatedComboBox() { if (!DesignMode && IoC.Instance != null) { comboDataService = Ioc.Instance.Resolve<IComboDataService>(); } } } Neither solution is particularly good. What patterns and alternatives are available to more capably handle dependency-injection in the face of generated code? I'd love to see both general solutions, such as patterns, and ones specific to C#, Winforms, and Autofac.

    Read the article

  • how to implement IOC without a global static service (non-service locator solution)?

    - by Michel
    Hi, we want to use Unity for IOC. All i've seen is the implementation that there is one global static service which holds a reference to the Unity container, which registers all interface/class combinations and every class asks that object: give me an implementation for Ithis or IThat. Frequently i see a response that this pattern is not good because it leads to a dependency from ALL classes to this service. But what i don't see often, is: what is the alternative way? Michel EDIT: found out that the global static service is called the service locator, added that to the title.

    Read the article

  • What performance overhead do IoC containers involve?

    - by Sosh
    Hi, Loose coupling is wonderful of course, but I have often wondered what overhead wiring up dynamically using an IoC container (for example Castle Windsor) has over a tightly coupled system? I know that a detailed answer would depend on what the IoC was being used for, but I'm really just trying to get a feel for the magnitude of effort involved in the IoC work. Does anyone have any stats or other resources regarding this? Thanks

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Using IoC and Dependency Injection, how do I wrap an existing implementation with a new layer of imp

    - by Dividnedium
    I'm trying to figure out how this would be done in practice, so as not to violate the Open Closed principle. Say I have a class called HttpFileDownloader that has one function that takes a url and downloads a file returning the html as a string. This class implements an IFileDownloader interface which just has the one function. So all over my code I have references to the IFileDownloader interface and I have my IoC container returning an instance of HttpFileDownloader whenever an IFileDownloader is Resolved. Then after some use, it becomes clear that occasionally the server is too busy at the time and an exception is thrown. I decide that to get around this, I'm going to auto-retry 3 times if I get an exception, and wait 5 seconds in between each retry. So I create HttpFileDownloaderRetrier which has one function that uses HttpFileDownloader in a for loop with max 3 loops, and a 5 second wait between each loop. So that I can test the "retry" and "wait" abilities of the HttpFileDownloadRetrier I have the HttpFileDownloader dependency injected by having the HttpFileDownloaderRetrier constructor take an IFileDownloader. So now I want all Resolving of IFileDownloader to return the HttpFileDownloaderRetrier. But if I do that, then HttpFileDownloadRetrier's IFileDownloader dependency will get an instance of itself and not of HttpFileDownloader. So I can see that I could create a new interface for HttpFileDownloader called IFileDownloaderNoRetry, and change HttpFileDownloader to implement that. But that means I'm changing HttpFileDownloader, which violates Open Closed. Or I could implement a new interface for HttpFileDownloaderRetrier called IFileDownloaderRetrier, and then change all my other code to refer to that instead of IFileDownloader. But again, I'm now violating Open Closed in all my other code. So what am I missing here? How do I wrap an existing implementation (downloading) with a new layer of implementation (retrying and waiting) without changing existing code? Here's some code if it helps: public interface IFileDownloader { string Download(string url); } public class HttpFileDownloader : IFileDownloader { public string Download(string url) { //Cut for brevity - downloads file here returns as string return html; } } public class HttpFileDownloaderRetrier : IFileDownloader { IFileDownloader fileDownloader; public HttpFileDownloaderRetrier(IFileDownloader fileDownloader) { this.fileDownloader = fileDownloader; } public string Download(string url) { Exception lastException = null; //try 3 shots of pulling a bad URL. And wait 5 seconds after each failed attempt. for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) { try { fileDownloader.Download(url); } catch (Exception ex) { lastException = ex; } Utilities.WaitForXSeconds(5); } throw lastException; } }

    Read the article

  • IOC/Autofac problem

    - by Krazzy
    I am currently using Autofac, but am open to commentary regarding other IOC containers as well. I would prefer a solution using Autofac if possible. I am also somewhat new to IOC so I may be grossly misunderstanding what I should be using an IOC container for. Basically, the situation is as follows: I have a topmost IOC container for my app. I have a tree of child containers/scopes where I would like the same "service" (IWhatever) to resolve differently depending on which level in the tree it is resolved. Furthermore if a service is not registered at some level in the tree I would like the tree to be transversed upward until a suitable implementation is found. Furthermore, when constructing a given component, it is quite possible that I will need access to the parent container/scope. In many cases the component that I'm registering will have a dependency on the same or a different service in a parent scope. Is there any way to express this dependency with Autofac? Something like: builder.Register(c=> { var parentComponent = ?.Resolve<ISomeService>(); var childComponent = new ConcreteService(parentComponent, args...); return childComponent; }).As<ISomeService>(); I can't get anything similar to the above pseudocode to work for serveral reasons: A) It seems that all levels in the scope tree share a common set of registrations. I can't seem to find a way to make a given registration confined a certain "scope". B) I can't seem to find a way to get a hold of the parent scope of a given scope. I CAN resolve ILifetimeScope in the container and then case it to a concrete LifetimeScope instance which provides its parent scope, but I'm guessing it is probably note meant to be used this way. Is this safe? C) I'm not sure how to tell Autofac which container owns the resolved object. For many components I would like component to be "owned" by the scope in which it is constructed. Could tagged contexts help me here? Would I have to tag every level of the tree with a unique tag? This would be difficult because the tree depth is determined at runtime. Sorry for the extremely lengthy question. In summary: 1) Is there any way to do what I want to do using Autofac? 2) Is there another container more suited to this kind of dependency structure? 3) Is IOC the wrong tool for this altogether?

    Read the article

  • Abstract factory pattern on top of IoC?

    - by Sergei
    I have decided to use IoC principles on a bigger project. However, i would like to get something straight that's been bothering me for a long time. The conclusion that i have come up with is that an IoC container is an architectural pattern, not a design pattern. In other words, no class should be aware of its presence and the container itself should be used at the application layer to stitch up all components. Essentially, it becomes an option, on top of a well designed object-oriented model. Having said that, how is it possible to access resolved types without sprinkling IoC containers all over the place (regardless of whether they are abstracted or not)? The only option i see here is to utilize abstract factories which use an IoC container to resolve concrete types. This should be easy enough to swap out for a set of standard factories. Is this a good approach? Has anyone on here used it and how well did it work for you? Is there anything else available? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Creating a dynamic proxy generator – Part 1 – Creating the Assembly builder, Module builder and cach

    - by SeanMcAlinden
    I’ve recently started a project with a few mates to learn the ins and outs of Dependency Injection, AOP and a number of other pretty crucial patterns of development as we’ve all been using these patterns for a while but have relied totally on third part solutions to do the magic. We thought it would be interesting to really get into the details by rolling our own IoC container and hopefully learn a lot on the way, and you never know, we might even create an excellent framework. The open source project is called Rapid IoC and is hosted at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ One of the most interesting tasks for me is creating the dynamic proxy generator for enabling Aspect Orientated Programming (AOP). In this series of articles, I’m going to track each step I take for creating the dynamic proxy generator and I’ll try my best to explain what everything means - mainly as I’ll be using Reflection.Emit to emit a fair amount of intermediate language code (IL) to create the proxy types at runtime which can be a little taxing to read. It’s worth noting that building the proxy is without a doubt going to be slightly painful so I imagine there will be plenty of areas I’ll need to change along the way. Anyway lets get started…   Part 1 - Creating the Assembly builder, Module builder and caching mechanism Part 1 is going to be a really nice simple start, I’m just going to start by creating the assembly, module and type caches. The reason we need to create caches for the assembly, module and types is simply to save the overhead of recreating proxy types that have already been generated, this will be one of the important steps to ensure that the framework is fast… kind of important as we’re calling the IoC container ‘Rapid’ – will be a little bit embarrassing if we manage to create the slowest framework. The Assembly builder The assembly builder is what is used to create an assembly at runtime, we’re going to have two overloads, one will be for the actual use of the proxy generator, the other will be mainly for testing purposes as it will also save the assembly so we can use Reflector to examine the code that has been created. Here’s the code: DynamicAssemblyBuilder using System; using System.Reflection; using System.Reflection.Emit; namespace Rapid.DynamicProxy.Assembly {     /// <summary>     /// Class for creating an assembly builder.     /// </summary>     internal static class DynamicAssemblyBuilder     {         #region Create           /// <summary>         /// Creates an assembly builder.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="assemblyName">Name of the assembly.</param>         public static AssemblyBuilder Create(string assemblyName)         {             AssemblyName name = new AssemblyName(assemblyName);               AssemblyBuilder assembly = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.DefineDynamicAssembly(                     name, AssemblyBuilderAccess.Run);               DynamicAssemblyCache.Add(assembly);               return assembly;         }           /// <summary>         /// Creates an assembly builder and saves the assembly to the passed in location.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="assemblyName">Name of the assembly.</param>         /// <param name="filePath">The file path.</param>         public static AssemblyBuilder Create(string assemblyName, string filePath)         {             AssemblyName name = new AssemblyName(assemblyName);               AssemblyBuilder assembly = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.DefineDynamicAssembly(                     name, AssemblyBuilderAccess.RunAndSave, filePath);               DynamicAssemblyCache.Add(assembly);               return assembly;         }           #endregion     } }   So hopefully the above class is fairly explanatory, an AssemblyName is created using the passed in string for the actual name of the assembly. An AssemblyBuilder is then constructed with the current AppDomain and depending on the overload used, it is either just run in the current context or it is set up ready for saving. It is then added to the cache.   DynamicAssemblyCache using System.Reflection.Emit; using Rapid.DynamicProxy.Exceptions; using Rapid.DynamicProxy.Resources.Exceptions;   namespace Rapid.DynamicProxy.Assembly {     /// <summary>     /// Cache for storing the dynamic assembly builder.     /// </summary>     internal static class DynamicAssemblyCache     {         #region Declarations           private static object syncRoot = new object();         internal static AssemblyBuilder Cache = null;           #endregion           #region Adds a dynamic assembly to the cache.           /// <summary>         /// Adds a dynamic assembly builder to the cache.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="assemblyBuilder">The assembly builder.</param>         public static void Add(AssemblyBuilder assemblyBuilder)         {             lock (syncRoot)             {                 Cache = assemblyBuilder;             }         }           #endregion           #region Gets the cached assembly                  /// <summary>         /// Gets the cached assembly builder.         /// </summary>         /// <returns></returns>         public static AssemblyBuilder Get         {             get             {                 lock (syncRoot)                 {                     if (Cache != null)                     {                         return Cache;                     }                 }                   throw new RapidDynamicProxyAssertionException(AssertionResources.NoAssemblyInCache);             }         }           #endregion     } } The cache is simply a static property that will store the AssemblyBuilder (I know it’s a little weird that I’ve made it public, this is for testing purposes, I know that’s a bad excuse but hey…) There are two methods for using the cache – Add and Get, these just provide thread safe access to the cache.   The Module Builder The module builder is required as the create proxy classes will need to live inside a module within the assembly. Here’s the code: DynamicModuleBuilder using System.Reflection.Emit; using Rapid.DynamicProxy.Assembly; namespace Rapid.DynamicProxy.Module {     /// <summary>     /// Class for creating a module builder.     /// </summary>     internal static class DynamicModuleBuilder     {         /// <summary>         /// Creates a module builder using the cached assembly.         /// </summary>         public static ModuleBuilder Create()         {             string assemblyName = DynamicAssemblyCache.Get.GetName().Name;               ModuleBuilder moduleBuilder = DynamicAssemblyCache.Get.DefineDynamicModule                 (assemblyName, string.Format("{0}.dll", assemblyName));               DynamicModuleCache.Add(moduleBuilder);               return moduleBuilder;         }     } } As you can see, the module builder is created on the assembly that lives in the DynamicAssemblyCache, the module is given the assembly name and also a string representing the filename if the assembly is to be saved. It is then added to the DynamicModuleCache. DynamicModuleCache using System.Reflection.Emit; using Rapid.DynamicProxy.Exceptions; using Rapid.DynamicProxy.Resources.Exceptions; namespace Rapid.DynamicProxy.Module {     /// <summary>     /// Class for storing the module builder.     /// </summary>     internal static class DynamicModuleCache     {         #region Declarations           private static object syncRoot = new object();         internal static ModuleBuilder Cache = null;           #endregion           #region Add           /// <summary>         /// Adds a dynamic module builder to the cache.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="moduleBuilder">The module builder.</param>         public static void Add(ModuleBuilder moduleBuilder)         {             lock (syncRoot)             {                 Cache = moduleBuilder;             }         }           #endregion           #region Get           /// <summary>         /// Gets the cached module builder.         /// </summary>         /// <returns></returns>         public static ModuleBuilder Get         {             get             {                 lock (syncRoot)                 {                     if (Cache != null)                     {                         return Cache;                     }                 }                   throw new RapidDynamicProxyAssertionException(AssertionResources.NoModuleInCache);             }         }           #endregion     } }   The DynamicModuleCache is very similar to the assembly cache, it is simply a statically stored module with thread safe Add and Get methods.   The DynamicTypeCache To end off this post, I’m going to create the cache for storing the generated proxy classes. I’ve spent a fair amount of time thinking about the type of collection I should use to store the types and have finally decided that for the time being I’m going to use a generic dictionary. This may change when I can actually performance test the proxy generator but the time being I think it makes good sense in theory, mainly as it pretty much maintains it’s performance with varying numbers of items – almost constant (0)1. Plus I won’t ever need to loop through the items which is not the dictionaries strong point. Here’s the code as it currently stands: DynamicTypeCache using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Security.Cryptography; using System.Text; namespace Rapid.DynamicProxy.Types {     /// <summary>     /// Cache for storing proxy types.     /// </summary>     internal static class DynamicTypeCache     {         #region Declarations           static object syncRoot = new object();         public static Dictionary<string, Type> Cache = new Dictionary<string, Type>();           #endregion           /// <summary>         /// Adds a proxy to the type cache.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="type">The type.</param>         /// <param name="proxy">The proxy.</param>         public static void AddProxyForType(Type type, Type proxy)         {             lock (syncRoot)             {                 Cache.Add(GetHashCode(type.AssemblyQualifiedName), proxy);             }         }           /// <summary>         /// Tries the type of the get proxy for.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="type">The type.</param>         /// <returns></returns>         public static Type TryGetProxyForType(Type type)         {             lock (syncRoot)             {                 Type proxyType;                 Cache.TryGetValue(GetHashCode(type.AssemblyQualifiedName), out proxyType);                 return proxyType;             }         }           #region Private Methods           private static string GetHashCode(string fullName)         {             SHA1CryptoServiceProvider provider = new SHA1CryptoServiceProvider();             Byte[] buffer = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(fullName);             Byte[] hash = provider.ComputeHash(buffer, 0, buffer.Length);             return Convert.ToBase64String(hash);         }           #endregion     } } As you can see, there are two public methods, one for adding to the cache and one for getting from the cache. Hopefully they should be clear enough, the Get is a TryGet as I do not want the dictionary to throw an exception if a proxy doesn’t exist within the cache. Other than that I’ve decided to create a key using the SHA1CryptoServiceProvider, this may change but my initial though is the SHA1 algorithm is pretty fast to put together using the provider and it is also very unlikely to have any hashing collisions. (there are some maths behind how unlikely this is – here’s the wiki if you’re interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA_hash_functions)   Anyway, that’s the end of part 1 – although I haven’t started any of the fun stuff (by fun I mean hairpulling, teeth grating Relfection.Emit style fun), I’ve got the basis of the DynamicProxy in place so all we have to worry about now is creating the types, interceptor classes, method invocation information classes and finally a really nice fluent interface that will abstract all of the hard-core craziness away and leave us with a lightning fast, easy to use AOP framework. Hope you find the series interesting. All of the source code can be viewed and/or downloaded at our codeplex site - http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ Kind Regards, Sean.

    Read the article

  • How can I resolve circular dependencies in Funq IoC?

    - by Rickard
    I have two classes which I need to reference each other. class Foo { public Foo(IBar bar) {} } class Bar { public Bar(IFoo foo) {} } When I do: container.RegisterAutoWiredAs<Foo, IFoo>(); container.RegisterAutoWiredAs<Bar, IBar>(); and when I try to resolve either interface I get a circular dependency graph which results in an eternal loop. Is there an easy way to solve this in Funq or do you know of a workaround?

    Read the article

  • How do you reconcile IDisposable and IoC?

    - by Mr. Putty
    I'm finally wrapping my head around IoC and DI in C#, and am struggling with some of the edges. I'm using the Unity container, but I think this question applies more broadly. Using an IoC container to dispense instances that implement IDisposable freaks me out! How are you supposed to know if you should Dispose()? The instance might have been created just for you (and therefor you should Dispose() it), or it could be an instance whose lifetime is managed elsewhere (and therefor you'd better not). Nothing in the code tells you, and in fact this could change based on configuration!!! This seems deadly to me. Can any IoC experts out there describe good ways to handle this ambiguity?

    Read the article

  • Why did Steve Sanderson in his "Pro ASP.NET MVC 2 Framework" book change an example IoC container?

    - by rem
    I like Steve Sanderson's "Pro ASP.NET MVC Framework" book. It helped me a lot. I have been waiting for its new edition and it is ready now, as we can see in this Steve's blog post It is updated a lot taking into account all new features of ASP.NET MVC 2, .NET 4 and Visual Studio 2010. In addition, "SportsStore" tutorial of this edition uses Ninject instead of first edition's Castle Windsor for DI. I wonder, why? Does it mean that Castle Windsor became a little outdated?

    Read the article

  • Are we using IoC effectively?

    - by Juliet
    So my company uses Castle Windsor IoC container, but in a way that feels "off": All the data types are registered in code, not the config file. All data types are hard-coded to use one interface implementation. In fact, for nearly all given interfaces, there is and will only ever be one implementation. All registered data types have a default constructor, so Windsor doesn't instantiate an object graph for any registered types. The people who designed the system insist the IoC container makes the system better. We have 1200+ public classes, so its a big system, the kind where you'd expect to find a framework like Windsor. But I'm still skeptical. Is my company using IoC effectively? Is there an advantage to new'ing objects with Windsor than new'ing objects with the new keyword?

    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

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