I am still fairly new to Autofac and Nlog and I need some help in understanding what is taking place in my Autofac LoggingModule for Nlog. It works as expected thanks to following the injecting-nlog-with-autofacs-registergeneric. But rather than just copy paste, I would like to make sure I understand what is occurring in each method (Load & AttachToComponentRegistration). If you could review my thoughts and further clarify anything I have incorrect (quite a bit I am sure), I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance!
Database Target using Nlog
Dependency Injection using Autofac
ASP.NET MVC web app for learning
Dvd Libary app (DvdAdd, DvdEdit, DvdDelete, DvdList)
LoggingModule
public class LoggingModule : Module
{
protected override void Load(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
builder
.Register((c, p) => new LogService(p.TypedAs<Type>()))
.AsImplementedInterfaces();
}
protected override void AttachToComponentRegistration(IComponentRegistry componentRegistry, IComponentRegistration registration)
{
registration.Preparing +=
(sender, args) =>
{
var forType = args.Component.Activator.LimitType;
var logParameter = new ResolvedParameter(
(p, c) => p.ParameterType == typeof(ILog),
(p, c) => c.Resolve<ILog>(TypedParameter.From(forType)));
args.Parameters = args.Parameters.Union(new[] { logParameter });
};
}
}
My understanding of the code within Load()
c - The parameter c, provided to the expression, is the component context(an IComponentContext object) in which the component is being created. The context in which a service can be accessed or a component's dependencies resolved.
p - An IEnumerable with the incoming parameter set
AsImplementedInterfaces - Autofac allows its users to register the types explicitly or implicitly. While "As" is used for explicit registrations, "AsImplementedInterfaces" and "AsSelf" are used for implicit ones. In other words, the container automatically registers the implementation against all the interfaces it implements.
Thoughts: The Load method code registers a new LogService class (which represents "c") with the type of logger (which represents "p") as the constructor parameter for the LogService class
Questions:
Are my thoughts above correct?
Should it be SingleInstance or should it / will it only live as long as the calling classes scope? (I am thinking about my Unit Of Work)
My understanding of the code within AttachToComponentRegistration()
AttachToComponentRegistration method - Override to attach module-specific functionality to a component registration.
AttachToComponentRegistration Parameters:
IComponentRegistry componentRegistry - Provides component registrations according to the services they provide.
IComponentRegistration registration - Describes a logical component within the container.
registration.Preparing - Fired when a new instance is required. The instance can be provided in order to skip the regular activator, by setting the Instance property in the provided event arguments.
var forType = args.Component.Activator.LimitType;
args = Autofac.Core.PreparingEventArgs - Fired before the activation process to allow parameters to be changed or an alternative instance to be provided.
Component = PreparingEventArgs.Component Property - Gets the component providing the instance being activated
Activator = IComponentRegistration.Activator Property - Gets the activator used to create instances.
LimitType = IInstanceActivator.LimitType Property - Gets the most specific type that the component instances are known to be castable to.
Thoughts on forType - As I understand it, this variable holds the Name and FullName of the calling class from where the logging service is being called?
forType Debugger Image
Questions:
Are my thoughts forType correct?
var logParameter = new ResolvedParameter(
(p, c) => p.ParameterType == typeof(ILog),
(p, c) => c.Resolve<ILog>(TypedParameter.From(forType)));
ResolvedParameter - can be used as a way to supply values dynamically retrieved from the container,
e.g. by resolving a service by name.
Thoughts on logParameter - This is where I start to get lost. So does, it check that the Parameter is of Type ILog and if so it will then resolve it with the constructor parameter and pass in forType variable?
Questions:
Are my thoughts on logParameter above correct?
args.Parameters = args.Parameters.Union(new[] { logParameter });
args.Parameters = PreparingEventArgs.Parameters Property - Gets or sets the parameters supplied to the activator.
args.Parameters.Union = Produces the set union of two sequences by using the default equality comparer. Returns an System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1 that contains the elements from both input sequences, excluding duplicates.
Thoughts on args.Parameters - I really do not know at this point other than to guess that it returns a collection of Parameters and removes duplicates?
Questions:
Could you help talk me through what is going on in args.Parameters?
logParameter Debugger Image
Nlog Database Table Image
LogService class
public class LogService : ILog
{
private readonly ILogger _log;
public LogService(Type type)
{
_log = LogManager.GetLogger(type.FullName);
}
public void Debug(string message, params object[] args)
{
Log(LogLevel.Debug, message, args);
}
public void Info(string message, params object[] args)
{
Log(LogLevel.Info, message, args);
}
public void Warn(string message, params object[] args)
{
Log(LogLevel.Warn, message, args);
}
public void Error(string message, params object[] args)
{
Log(LogLevel.Error, message, args);
}
public void Error(Exception ex)
{
Log(LogLevel.Error, null, null, ex);
}
public void Error(Exception ex, string message, params object[] args)
{
Log(LogLevel.Error, message, args, ex);
}
public void Fatal(Exception ex, string message, params object[] args)
{
Log(LogLevel.Fatal, message, args, ex);
}
private void Log(LogLevel level, string message, object[] args)
{
_log.Log(typeof(LogService), new LogEventInfo(level, _log.Name, null, message, args));
}
private void Log(LogLevel level, string message, object[] args, Exception ex)
{
_log.Log(typeof(LogService), new LogEventInfo(level, _log.Name, null, message, args, ex));
}
}
ILog interface
public interface ILog
{
void Debug(string message, params object[] args);
void Info(string message, params object[] args);
void Warn(string message, params object[] args);
void Error(string message, params object[] args);
void Error(Exception ex);
void Error(Exception ex, string message, params object[] args);
void Fatal(Exception ex, string message, params object[] args);
}
There's a lot to unpack here. You're not really asking for an answer to a specific question so much as a code walkthrough and explanation of an existing solution that works, so I might suggest posting to StackExchange Code Review if you need much more than what I'm going to give you here. Not trying to be unhelpful, but, like, if your question is, "Is my thinking right?" and the answer is "sort of," there's a lot of discussion on each individual point to explain why "sort of" is the answer (or "no," or "yes," as the case may be). It can turn into a lengthy answer, followed up by additional questions for clarification, which require yet additional answers... and StackOverflow isn't really a discussion forum capable of those sorts of things.
[i.e., I'll take probably an hour and write up an answer here... but I can't promise I'll actually be back to follow up on anything because there are other questions to answer and other things I need to allocate time to. StackOverflow is really more about "How do I...?" or other things that have a single, reasonably concrete answer.]
First, I recommend diving in yourself with a debugger on some breakpoints to actually see what's going on. For example, you asked what's in LimitType in one area - you could pretty easily answer that one by just sticking a breakpoint on that line and looking at the value. This will be a good way to follow up for additional clarification yourself - breakpoints for the win.
Second, I recommend spending some time with the Autofac docs. There's a lot of documentation out there that can answer questions.
The NLog module here appears to be based on the log4net module in the documentation which has a bit more explanation of what's going on.
There's an explanation of parameters (like TypedParameter) and how they're used.
Given the docs can round out some things that may not be clear, rather than try to address each "are my thoughts correct" item, let me just heavily annotate the module and hope that clarifies things.
// General module documentation is here:
// https://autofac.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configuration/modules.html
public class LoggingModule : Module
{
// Load basically registers types with the container just like
// if you were doing it yourself on the ContainerBuilder. It's
// just a nice way of packaging up a set of registrations so
// they're not all in your program's "Main" method or whatever.
protected override void Load(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
// This is a lambda registration. Docs here:
// https://autofac.readthedocs.io/en/latest/register/registration.html#lambda-expression-components
// This one uses both the component context (c) and the incoming
// set of parameters (p). In this lambda, the parameters are NOT the set of constructor
// parameters that Autofac has resolved - they're ONLY things that
// were MANUALLY specified. In this case, it's assuming a TypedParameter
// with a System.Type value is being provided manually. It's not going
// to try resolving that value from the container. This is going hand-in-hand
// with the logParameter you see in AttachToComponentRegistration.
// Parameter docs are here:
// https://autofac.readthedocs.io/en/latest/resolve/parameters.html
// In general if you resolve something that has both manually specified parameters
// and things that can be resolved by Autofac, the manually specified parameters
// will take precedence. However, in this lambda it's very specifically looking
// for a manually specified parameter.
// You'll want to keep this as a default InstancePerDependency because you probably
// want this to live as long as the thing using it and no longer. Likely
// NLog already has object pooling and caching built in so this isn't as
// expensive as you think, but I'm no NLog expert. log4net does handle
// that for you.
builder
.Register((c, p) => new LogService(p.TypedAs<Type>()))
.AsImplementedInterfaces();
}
// This method attaches a behavior (in this case, an event handler) to every
// component registered in the container. Think of it as a way to run a sort
// of "global foreach" over everything registered.
protected override void AttachToComponentRegistration(
IComponentRegistry componentRegistry,
IComponentRegistration registration)
{
// The Preparing event is called any time a new instance is needed. There
// are docs for the lifetime events but Preparing isn't on there. Here are the
// docs and the issue I filed on your behalf to get Preparing documented.
// https://autofac.readthedocs.io/en/latest/lifetime/events.html
// https://github.com/autofac/Documentation/issues/69
// You can see the Preparing event here:
// https://github.com/autofac/Autofac/blob/6dde84e5b0a3f82136a0567a84da498b04e1fa2d/src/Autofac/Core/IComponentRegistration.cs#L83
// and the event args here:
// https://github.com/autofac/Autofac/blob/6dde84e5b0/src/Autofac/Core/PreparingEventArgs.cs
registration.Preparing +=
(sender, args) =>
{
// The Component is the thing being resolved - the thing that
// needs a LogService injected. The Component.Activator is the
// thing that is actually going to execute to "new up" an instance
// of the Component. The Component.Activator.LimitType is the actual
// System.Type of the thing being resolved.
var forType = args.Component.Activator.LimitType;
// The docs above explain ResolvedParameter - basically a manually
// passed in parameter that can execute some logic to determine if
// it satisfies a constructor or property dependency. The point of
// this particular parameter is to provide an ILog to anything being
// resolved that happens to have an ILog constructor parameter.
var logParameter = new ResolvedParameter(
// p is the System.Reflection.ParameterInfo that describes the
// constructor parameter that needs injecting. c is the IComponentContext
// in which the resolution is being done (not used here). If this
// method evaluates to true then this parameter will be used; if not,
// it will refuse to provide a value. In this case, if the parameter
// being injected is an ILog, this ResolvedParameter will tell Autofac
// it can provide a value.
(p, c) => p.ParameterType == typeof(ILog),
// p and c are the same here, but this time they're used to actually
// generate the value of the parameter - the ILog instance that should
// be injected. Again, this will only run if the above predicate evaluates
// to true. This creates an ILog by manually resolving from the same
// component context (the same lifetime scope) as the thing that
// needs the ILog. Remember earlier that call to p.AsTyped<Type>()
// to get a parameter? The TypedParameter thing here is how that
// value gets poked in up there. This Resolve call will effectively
// end up calling the lambda registration.
(p, c) => c.Resolve<ILog>(TypedParameter.From(forType)));
// The thing being resolved (the component that consumes ILog) now
// needs to be told to make use of the log parameter, so add it into
// the list of parameters that can be used when resolving that thing.
// If there's an ILog, Autofac will use this specified parameter to
// fulfill the requirement.
args.Parameters = args.Parameters.Union(new[] { logParameter });
};
}
}
Something missing from this that's present in the log4net module example is the ability to do property injection for the logger. However, I'm not going to solve that here; you can look at the example right in the documentation and take that as an exercise to work on if you need that functionality.
I hope that helps. I'll probably not be coming back to follow up on additional questions, so if this isn't enough, I very, very much recommend setting some breakpoints, maybe setting up some tiny minimal-repro unit tests, that sort of thing, and do some deeper exploration to get clarity. Honestly, it's one thing to have someone else explain it, but it's another to actually see it in action and dive into the source of various projects. You'll come out with a fuller understanding with the latter approach, even if it's potentially not as fast.
Related
I'm working on a code in a wicket project, where the original devs used the onModelChanged() method quite a lot in Ajax request handling methods. I, for one, however am not a strong believer of this implementation.
In fact, I can't think of any examples, where calling the target.add(...) is inferior to calling the onModelChanged method.
Am I missing some key concepts here?
Example:
public MyComponent extends Panel {
public MyComponent(String id, Component... componentsToRefresh) {
add(new AjaxLink<Void>("someId") {
#Override
public void onClick(AjaxRequestTarget target) {
// some logic with model change
for(Component c: componentsToRefresh) {
c.modelChanged();
}
target.add(componentsToRefresh);
}
};
}
}
Now, there are a couple of things I don't agree with, the very first is the componentsToRefresh parameter, the second is (as the question suggests), the fact that we called c.modelChanged() on all components in that array. My guess would be that it is completely un necessary and instead of a parameter in the constructor, one should just write an empty function in MyComponent and override it, and put the necessary components in there when needed.
I would suggest to use Wicket Event system instead. That is, whenever the AjaxLink is clicked you will broadcast an event:
send(getPage(), Broadcast.BREATH, new MyEventPayload(target));
This will broadcast the event to the current Page and all its components.
Then in any of your components you can listen for events:
#Override
public void onEvent(IEvent event) {
Object payload = event.getPayload();
if (payload instanceof MyEventPayload) {
((MyEventPayload) payload).getTarget().add(this); // or any of my sub-components
event.stop(); // optionally you can stop the broadcasting
}
}
This way you do not couple unrelated components in your application.
See Wicket Guide for more information.
With Autofac, what is the proper way to register types or declare dependencies for this type of circular graph?
public interface IComponent
{
void DoSomething();
}
public class AComponent: IComponent
{
...
}
public class BComponent: IComponent
{
...
}
public class CompositeComponent: IComponent
{
public CompositeComponent(IEnumerable<IComponent> components)
{
this.components = components;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
foreach(var component in components)
component.DoSomething();
}
}
The end goal would be that CompositeComponent be the default registration of IComponent and simply pass down calls to all other implementations.
I am gathering that the intent of the question is that you have some implementations of IComponent and you have some sort of CompositeComponent that also implements IComponent. CompositeComponent needs all of the registered IComponent instances except itself otherwise it creates a circular dependency.
This whole thing overlaps pretty heavily with one of our FAQs: "How do I pick a service implementation by context?"
You have some options. In order of my personal recommendation:
Option 1: Redesign the Interfaces
There are actually two concepts going on here - the notion of an individual handler and the notion of a thing that aggregates a set of individual handlers.
Using less generic terms, you might have an IMessageHandler interface and then something that passes a message through the set of all IMessageHandler implementations, but that thing that aggregates the handlers and deals with errors and ensuring the message is handled only by the right handler and all that... that isn't, itself, also a message handler. It's a message processor. So you'd actually have two different interfaces, even if the methods on the interface look the same - IMessageHandler and IMessageProcessor.
Back in your generic component terms, that'd mean you have IComponent like you do now, but you'd also add an IComponentManager interface. CompositeComponent would change to implement that.
public interface IComponentManager
{
void DoSomething();
}
public class ComponentManager : IComponentManager
{
public ComponentManager(IEnumerable<IComponent> components)
{
this.components = components;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
foreach(var component in components)
component.DoSomething();
}
}
Option 2: Use Keyed Services
If you won't (or can't) redesign, you can "flag" which registrations should contribute to the composite by using service keys. When you register the composite, don't use a key... but do specify that the parameter you want for the constructor should resolve from the keyed contributors.
builder.RegisterType<AComponent>()
.Keyed<IComponent>("contributor");
builder.RegisterType<BComponent>()
.Keyed<IComponent>("contributor");
builder.RegisterType<CompositeComponent>()
.As<IComponent>()
.WithParameter(
new ResolvedParameter(
(pi, ctx) => pi.Name == "components",
(pi, ctx) => ctx.ResolveKeyed<IEnumerable<IComponent>>("contributor")));
When you resolve IComponent without providing a key, you'll get the CompositeComponent since it's the only one that was registered that way.
Option 3: Use Lambdas
If you know up front the set of components that should go into the composite, you could just build that up in a lambda and not over-DI the whole thing.
builder.Register(ctx =>
{
var components = new IComponent[]
{
new AComponent(),
new BComponent()
};
return new CompositeComponent(components);
}).As<IComponent>();
It's more manual, but it's also very clear. You could resolve individual constructor parameters for AComponent and BComponent using the ctx lambda parameter if needed.
How to communicate user defined objects and user defined (checked) exceptions between Service and UI in JavaFX2?
The examples only show String being sent in to the Service as a property and array of observable Strings being sent back to the UI.
Properties seem to be defined only for simple types. StringProperty, IntegerProperty, DoubleProperty etc.
Currently I have a user defined object (not a simple type), that I want Task to operate upon and update with the output data it produced. I am sending it through the constructor of Service which passes it on through the constructor of Task. I wondered about the stricture that parameters must be passed in via properties.
Also if an exception is thrown during Task's operation, How would it be passed from Service to the UI? I see only a getException() method, no traditional throw/catch.
Properties http://docs.oracle.com/javafx/2/binding/jfxpub-binding.htm
Service and Task http://docs.oracle.com/javafx/2/threads/jfxpub-threads.htm
Service javadocs http://docs.oracle.com/javafx/2/api/javafx/concurrent/Service.html#getException()
"Because the Task is designed for use with JavaFX GUI applications, it
ensures that every change to its public properties, as well as change
notifications for state, errors, and for event handlers, all occur on
the main JavaFX application thread. Accessing these properties from a
background thread (including the call() method) will result in runtime
exceptions being raised.
It is strongly encouraged that all Tasks be initialized with immutable
state upon which the Task will operate. This should be done by
providing a Task constructor which takes the parameters necessary for
execution of the Task. Immutable state makes it easy and safe to use
from any thread and ensures correctness in the presence of multiple
threads."
But if my UI only touches the object after Task is done, then it should be ok, right?
Service has a signature Service<V> the <V> is a generic type parameter used to specify the type of the return object from the service's supplied task.
Let's say you want to define a service which returns a user defined object of type Foo, then you can do it like this:
class FooGenerator extends Service<Foo> {
protected Task createTask() {
return new Task<Foo>() {
protected Foo call() throws Exception {
return new Foo();
}
};
}
}
To use the service:
FooGenerator fooGenerator = new FooGenerator();
fooGenerator.setOnSucceeded(new EventHandler<WorkerStateEvent>() {
#Override public void handle(WorkerStateEvent t) {
Foo myNewFoo = fooGenerator.getValue();
System.out.println(myNewFoo);
}
});
fooGenerator.start();
If you want to pass an input value into the service each time before you start or restart it, you have to be a little bit more careful. You can add the values you want to input to the service as settable members on the service. These setters can be called from the JavaFX application thread, before the service's start method is invoked. Then, when the service's task is created, pass the parameters through to the service's Task's constructor.
When doing this it is best to make all information passable back and forth between threads immutable. For the example below, a Foo object is passed as an input parameter to the service and a Foo object based on the input received as an output of the service. But the state of Foo itself is only initialized in it's constructor - the instances of Foo are immutable and cannot be changed once created and all of it's member variables are final and cannot change. This makes it much easier to reason about the program, as you never need worry that another thread might overwrite the state concurrently. It seems a little bit complicated, but it does make everything very safe.
class FooModifier extends Service<Foo> {
private Foo foo;
void setFoo(Foo foo) { this.foo = foo; }
#Override protected Task createTask() {
return new FooModifierTask(foo);
}
private class FooModifierTask extends Task<Foo> {
final private Foo fooInput;
FooModifierTask(Foo fooInput) { this.fooInput = fooInput; }
#Override protected Foo call() throws Exception {
Thread.currentThread().sleep(1000);
return new Foo(fooInput);
}
}
}
class Foo {
private final int answer;
Foo() { answer = random.nextInt(100); }
Foo(Foo input) { answer = input.getAnswer() + 42; }
public int getAnswer() { return answer; }
}
There is a further example of providing input to a Service in the Service javadoc.
To return a custom user exception from the service, just throw the user exception during the service's task call handler. For example:
class BadFooGenerator extends Service<Foo> {
#Override protected Task createTask() {
return new Task<Foo>() {
#Override protected Foo call() throws Exception {
Thread.currentThread().sleep(1000);
throw new BadFooException();
}
};
}
}
And the exception can be retrieved like this:
BadFooGenerator badFooGenerator = new BadFooGenerator();
badFooGenerator.setOnFailed(new EventHandler<WorkerStateEvent>() {
#Override public void handle(WorkerStateEvent t) {
Throwable ouch = badFooGenerator.getException();
System.out.println(ouch.getClass().getName() + " -> " + ouch.getMessage());
}
});
badFooGenerator.start();
I created a couple of executable samples you can use to try this out.
Properties seem to be defined only for simple types. StringProperty, IntegerProperty, DoubleProperty etc. Currently I have a user defined object (not a simple type), that I want Task to operate upon and update with the output data it produced
If you want a property that can be used for your own classes try SimpleObjectProperty where T could be Exception, or whatever you need.
Also if an exception is thrown during Task's operation, How would it be passed from Service to the UI?
You could set an EventHandler on the Task#onFailedProperty from the UI with the logic with what to do on failure.
But if my UI only touches the object after Task is done, then it should be ok, right?
If you call it from your UI you are sure to be on the javaFX thread so you will be OK. You can assert that you're on the javaFX thread by calling Platform.isFxApplicationThread().
I would like to be able to run tests on my fake repository (that uses a list)
and my real repository (that uses a database) to make sure that both my mocked up version works as expected and my actual production repository works as expected. I thought the easiest way would be to use TestCase
private readonly StandardKernel _kernel = new StandardKernel();
private readonly IPersonRepository fakePersonRepository;
private readonly IPersonRepository realPersonRepository;
[Inject]
public PersonRepositoryTests()
{
realPersonRepository = _kernel.Get<IPersonRepository>();
_kernel = new StandardKernel(new TestModule());
fakePersonRepository = _kernel.Get<IPersonRepository>();
}
[TestCase(fakePersonRepository)]
[TestCase(realPersonRepository)]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(IPersonRepository personRepository)
{
if (personRepository == null)
{
throw new NullReferenceException("Person Repostory never Injected : is Null");
}
var records = personRepository.GetAllPeople();
Assert.AreEqual(0, records.Count());
}
but it asks for a constant expression.
Attributes are a compile-time decoration for an attribute, so anything that you put in a TestCase attribute has to be a constant that the compiler can resolve.
You can try something like this (untested):
[TestCase(typeof(FakePersonRespository))]
[TestCase(typeof(PersonRespository))]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(Type personRepoType)
{
// do some reflection based Activator.CreateInstance() stuff here
// to instantiate the incoming type
}
However, this gets a bit ugly because I imagine that your two different implementation might have different constructor arguments. Plus, you really don't want all that dynamic type instantiation code cluttering the test.
A possible solution might be something like this:
[TestCase("FakePersonRepository")]
[TestCase("TestPersonRepository")]
public void CheckRepositoryIsEmptyOnStart(string repoType)
{
// Write a helper class that accepts a string and returns a properly
// instantiated repo instance.
var repo = PersonRepoTestFactory.Create(repoType);
// your test here
}
Bottom line is, the test case attribute has to take a constant expression. But you can achieve the desired result by shoving the instantiation code into a factory.
You might look at the TestCaseSource attribute, though that may fail with the same error. Otherwise, you may have to settle for two separate tests, which both call a third method to handle all of the common test logic.
I'm using Autofac 2.4.4.705.
The output of the following code is: 1 (which means the resolved collection contains one item. I thought it should be empty)
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var builder = new Autofac.ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterModule(new AutofacModule());
using (var container = builder.Build())
{
var x = container.Resolve<ObservableCollection<A>>();
Console.WriteLine(x.Count);
}
}
}
class A
{
}
class AutofacModule : Autofac.Module
{
protected override void Load(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
builder.RegisterGeneric(typeof(ObservableCollection<>))
.As(typeof(ObservableCollection<>));
}
}
It seems the issue is cause by:
builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
If I remove it from AutofacModule, then the output is 0.
Any ideas?
Thanks
Update:
Ah, I think I understand now. Autofac thought I want to resolve all types of A, and there is one type of A in this example (A itself), so the ObservableCollection contains one item. I previously thought only IEnumerable<> has this behavior. But it seems subtypes of IEnumerable<> also have this behavior.
But sometimes what I really want is to inject an collection, for example, sometime I need to inject DispacherNotifiedObservableCollection into my ViewModels. Any workarounds?
Update 2:
Based on the answer of Nicholas Blumhardt, I changed my code to:
builder.RegisterGeneric(typeof(ExtendedObservableCollection<>))
.As(typeof(IObservableCollection<>))
.UsingConstructor();
public interface IObservableCollection<T> :
IList<T>, ICollection<T>, IEnumerable<T>, INotifyCollectionChanged, INotifyPropertyChanged
{
void AddRange(IEnumerable<T> list);
void Sort<TKey>(Func<T, TKey> keySelector, System.ComponentModel.ListSortDirection direction);
void Sort<TKey>(Func<T, TKey> keySelector, IComparer<TKey> comparer);
}
Now everything works fine. Thanks!
The behavior you're seeing is a result of the ObservableCollection type having a constructor that accepts IEnumerable.
You can change this to use the default constructor using the UsingConstructor() option.
ObservableCollection itself might not be a very good contract to depend on though- it is a bit unclear what the semantics should generally be. Wrapping it in a specialized component with it's own interface is the better option.