My layout
project.web (.net core 2.1 web api)
Some binding models (for post/put requests) and resource models for GET requests
Controllers.
I only call interfaces from (x.api) which are resolved to x.core services.
No validation or anything. This happens inside the core layer
I've setup a few things like automapper and swagger, that are not relevant for my question.
project.api (class lib)
only contains interfaces for .core and .store projects (services, repositories and domain models)
project.core (class lib)
two kinds of services
1) Services which call the repository services (interfaces). But validate the data before calling the repo service.
2) Services that will have to execute long term stuff (IE: scanning folders, handling file information, ...). I actually created HostedServices for these as a folder could easily contain thousands of files.
project.store (class lib)
Wrapper services for my storage (Only contains helper methods so I don't have to write the same queries a hundred times.)
Problem / question
At this time I have registered all of my services and repositories as singletons in public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
because I was using a different storage (nosql, litedb) before refactoring code to EF (sqllite)
Now the problem is that I want to register my DbContext as scoped (by default)
But my repositories (singleton) depend on dbcontext. Which means I will have to make these scoped as well. I'm ok with this, as these are only wrapper services, so I don't have to write the same queries all the time.
But some other services, that will need access to my data are singletons, and I cannot register these as scoped. Contains some data that needs to be the same for every request, and some collections and long running jobs.
I can think of two solutions
The first solution is to make a dependency to IServiceScopeFactory in my repository and use something like using (var scope = ServiceScopeFactory.CreateScope()) { scope.ServiceProvider.GetService(typeof(MyDbContext))... }
this way I can remove the dependency from my repository wrapper, but this doesn't sound clean to me.
The other solution is to register all of my services that only handle database stuff as scoped. (IE customerSservice in core only does validations and calls customerRepository) I remove dependencies from my remaining singleton services.
In those singletons, instead of depending on the customersService, I could use a rest call with restsharp or something similar
Just like how I would consume them from my windows client applications and web client apps.
I don't actually like either. But perheps someone can give me some advice or thoughts?
Well, the two options you laid out are in fact your only two options. The first is the service locator antipattern, which as the name implies, is something you should avoid. However, when you are dealing with singleton-scoped objects needing access to objects in other scopes, there is no other way.
The only other option is to reduce the scope of your services from singletons, such that you can then inject the context directly. Not everything necessarily needs to be a singleton. Generally, if you need to utilize something like DbContext, there's a strong argument to be made that your object should not be singleton-scope in the first place. If you need it to be singleton-scoped, that's most likely an indication that the class is either doing too much or is otherwise brittle.
Related
I created a WCF service in charge of exposing my database's data since I don't want the database to be directly accessed by my application (for security reasons) and i need to be able to share data with third-party applications.
My solution is structured this way: WPF application -> WCFService library -> DataAccessLayer library. (Arrows define assembly dependencies 'depends on')
To implement the WCF service I considered to simply return detached EntityFramework objects from the service BUT it forces the main application to have a dependency on the DataAccessLayer library.
The only way i can get around that is generating POCO objects and use them to send them over the wire, but now i have to map values back and forth EntityFramework.
At the moment i'm generating POCOs dynamically via a T4 template and I'm using AutoMapper to map values back and forth EntityFramework.
The Wcf service will just have to implement the repository pattern to expose data.
Is this a good solution? Are there any other option?
Is there any shortcoming i should be aware of?
Depending on your constraints, I would have to agree with this solution.
I created an almost identical solution, although our motivations were slightly different. Our client was Delphi Win32, and at the time didn't have good support for JSON, so we had to use SOAP.
The client also didn't support nullable primitives, so the POCOs removed all unsupported types, and performed other changes to ensure interoperability, then we used Automapper custom mappings to handle the two way conversions.
All the WCF services (contracts and implementations) where also generated by T4 templates, using a generic repository. With T4 templates, I was able to generate a separate WCF service per table for CRUD operations, and then manually created WCF services that were business specific.
Finally, I was also able to used T4 templates to generate the Delphi repositories that interacted with the SOAP services.
Or
You could just as easily move the POCOs (and code generation) to a separate project, change your DataAccessLayer library to reference the POCOs library and only contain the Db context made up of DbSets of your POCOs, and Data access logic but no entities (which are now POCOs). Your clients will not need to have a dependency on the DataAccessLayer library.
So... a good solution, depending on your constraints.
I am an experienced .NET/C# developer but new to pretty much all of the technologies/libraries here including SQL/DB work.
I am developing a project with an Azure/Entity Framework .NET backend and portable .Net APK for consumption in a number of other projects. I am trying to follow recommended practices and guidelines, but it's surprisingly hard to find documentation. I find myself repeatedly feeling like I'm fighting against the system, and slowly beating out a seemingly endless succession of fires with a blunt table spoon.
I find myself wondering if the overall architecture I'm using is the fundamental problem here. I prefer to pretend I'm not merely incompetent.
Current Structure
DTO contracts project
Interfaces for the DTO classes shared between the other two projects
Backend project
Implementations of the DTO interfaces + conversion to/from model classes
Code first database model classes
TableController<SOME_DTO_CLASS> implementations
ApiController for non-query operations
Portable SDK library project
Implementations of the DTO interfaces + conversion to/from SDK classes
SDK exposed classes for use from other applications
Service class that wraps MobileServiceClient and IMobileServiceTable and exposes SDK classes
Motivation/Implementation
Contract interfaces
The motivation for the DTO contract interfaces is to get as far away from magic strings / relying on member names as possible. These are interfaces rather than classes because TableController<T> requires implementations of ITableData, which is not available for use in the portable DTO contracts project.
Backend
The TableController<SOME_DTO_CLASS> classes GET methods currently refer to the current context (NOT this.Query()) and .Select() to create matching instances of the DTO classes. Lazy-loading is intact. These GET methods apply a .Where() with this.User to filter out only those entities the user has permission to access.
The Code-First model entirely derives from EntityData, even if the class is not going to be exposed via a TableController<T>. Navigation properties are used to types that are NOT exposed via their own TableController<T>. The fluent API is used to describe relationships.
The DTO classes expose their relation properties as the interface types rather than their concrete types because that's how interfaces work.
SDK
Currently this uses IMobileServiceTable but will likely switch over to IMobileServiceSyncTable at some point.
The DTO classes expose their relation properties as the interface types rather than their concrete types because that's how interfaces work.
Current flaming spoon target
Right now I've got the SDK successfully exposing it's own SDK types pulled down from the database. DB model -> DB DTO --> *MS Code* --> SDK DTO -> SDK exposed class all works.
Sort of.
The DB DTO classes' properties that expose other DB DTO classes appear to be ignored in transmission despite being part of the IQueryable returned in the GET method. I cannot retrieve them using $expand= as apparently The specified type member 'TestClass' is not supported in LINQ to Entities. Only initializers, entity members, and entity navigation properties are supported. This still occurs if I switch from interface property types to concrete ones.
I could potentially avoid this issue by only including foreign key IDs and fetching linked entities separately in the SDK, but that seems highly inefficient and somewhat very nope.
Get to the question you 4AM fool!
Dis gud?
More specifically (and formally) is this current project structure reasonable and likely to be sustainable? Are there any obvious flaws or oversights that will prevent this from working?
Assuming this is reasonably reasonable, what is the proper way to tackle the DTO $expand issue?
The $expand attribute is the way to go, but unfortunately the Azure Mobile client SDK blocks this in the query string. It will be fixed in the future, but for right now your best bet is to use an attribute on the server side to add the query string on incoming requests.
For an example of this, see https://github.com/paulbatum/FieldEngineerLite/blob/master/FieldEngineerLite.Service/Helpers/ExpandPropertyAttribute.cs. The sample is for Azure Mobile Services, but that code can be easily applied to the Azure Mobile Apps server SDK.
I share a Data Transfer Object between an C# Azure Mobile Services server and client. I use the same class in both applications.
The TableController class used by Azure mobile services requires the DTO to inherit from 'EntityData', which in turn implements interface 'ITableData'.
ITable Data lives is part of reference:
Microsoft.WindowsAzure.Mobile.Service.Tables
I have not figured out how to include that reference without installing the entire server-side mobile services package in nuget:
WindowsAzureMobileServices.Backend
That includes OWIN, and many other references the client does not need. This is what I am doing currently. This works for a desktop application I am currently working on, but I think it will not work for universal apps and windows phone apps.
I also looked at microsoft's samples for mobile services, and there they use separate classes as DTOS for server and client.
Is it really the case that we have to write the same code twice?
No, but you could better make use of Shared Projects, and partial classes.
Your Shared Project will have common properties for the entities.
Other projects will reference this Shared one, and can add some other properties to shared entities, still using partial classes.
I have precise experience with AMS, so I know what you are meaning.
In my experience, is anyway not realistic to think to have exactly the same entity classes for client and server.
For instance, in so called Portable Class Libraries you can have a very small subset of framework, and references available.
Other than properties, you normally put attributes on POCO class files. On the client you may have some attributes that aren't available/meaningful for the server (e.g. SQLite attributes), or viceversa. You may can get stuck in this situation also with the shared projects approach I suggest, but it could be managed there with what so called preprocessor directives.
about a year ago I set set up a solution consisting of an ASP.Net MVC 3 (now) presentation layer, application layer, domain layer and infrastructure layer (crosscutting stuff and data). I decided to keep the domain model in a separate project from the domain logic and use a relaxed approach to the presentation layer by passing the domain entities instead of DTO's since we really only have 1 front end right now.
We are going to be servicing a distributed layer soon, in addition to our main website and I will use DTO's there, but I am considering using DTO's in the main website also. I am also wondering if I should bother to break out the framework code in the domain layer (IRepository, IUnitOfWork, Entity/Value object supertypes etc). Well here, let me list out the questions I need feedback on:
1) I was pretty diligent about not having an anemic domain model and also watched out for behavior that was specific to the presentation concerns. Most of the business calculations that are needed are on the domain entities, is it ok for the presentation layer to call this behavior directly or should it instead call an application service that then calls the domain entities? This would suggest to me that there is no reason to have the presentation layer know about the domain entities and instead could use DTO's. Alternatively, I could have the DTO's expose these behaviors, but then I feel like I am robbing the domain entities. So I guess that is 3 options (Rich domain objects called directly, service layer or dto with behavior) which is best?
2) Right now I have a domain project, which has domain services, specifications and logic and is orchestrated by the application layer and separate project for the domain model (used by presentation layer and application layer). I also have framework interfaces for generic repository and unit of work pattern here. Should I break the framework stuff out into a separate project and combine the rest into one project?
3) I want to reorganize my domain layer into aggregates, right now all of the domain model is organized by modules, basically all the types for each module are in one namespace. Would it be better to organize the entities, value objects, services and other stuff by the aggregates?
4) Should I use the Separated Interface pattern for infrastructure services that are basically .net framework helper library types? For example configuration objects or validation runners? What is the benefit there in doing so?
5) Lastly, not many examples I have seen have used interfaces for domain entities. Almost every object I have I prefer to pass around interfaces for dependency reasons and it makes testing much easier. Is it valid to use interfaces instead of concretes? I should mention that we use EF 4.3.1 (soon to upgrade to latest version) and I seem to remember that EF had a problem with using interfaces or something. Should I be exposing interfaces instead of the domain entities?
Thank you very much in advance.
Project Structure:
Presentation.Web
| |
| Application
| | |
Domain.Model - Domain
(Infrastructure.Data, Infrastructure.Core, Infrastructure.Security)
Explanation:
Presentation.Web (MVC3 Web Project)
Application
-- Service Layer that orchestrates the domain layer and responds to requests from the presentation layer (get this update that). This is organized by module, for example if I had a customer module I would have Application.Customer and in that would be all of the application services
Domain
-- Contains domain services, specifications, calculations and other domain logic that is not exposed as behavior on domain entities. For example a calculation that involves several domain entities exposed as a domain service for the application layer to call.
-- Also contains framework code for a specification framework and the main interfaces for a generic repository and unit of work pattern.
Domain.Model
-- Contains the domain entities and enumerations. Organized by module. For example, if I might have a customer module which has a customer entity, customerorder entity etc. This is broken out away from the domain project so that the objects can be used by the application and presenation layer.
Infrastructure.Security
-- Security infrastructure for authentication and authorization
Infrastructure.Core
-- Cross-cutting stuff used by multiple layers (validators, logging, configuration, extensions, IoC, email etc..). Most of the projects depend on interfaces in this project (except domain.model) for infrastructure services.
Infrastructure.Data
-- Repository Implementations via LINQ and EF 4.3.1, mapping layer, Unit of Work implementation. Interfaces are in Domain project (separated interfaces pattern)
1) First, determine whether your main website really needs to use the application layer. IMHO, if your application services and your main website are on the same web server, then you should evaluate whether the potential performance loss is worth having your main website call app server methods when it could call the domain objects directly. However, if your application server is definitely on another server, then yes, you should have the application server call your domain objects and pass only DTOs back and forth between it and any presentation layers you may have, including your main website.
2) This is really a question on preference of organization. Both are valid. You choose.
3) Anoter question on preference of organization. I, personally, organize my code by bounded context first. Then, I have entities and aggregate roots directly under them. Then, I have folders for Enumerations, Repositories (interfaces), Services (interfaces), Specifications, and Values. The namespaces do not reflect this organizational structure past the last bounded context folder. But, again, you should do this in the way that best suits the way you look at the code.
4) This is an implementation concern. I, personally, only break out implementation concerns into interfaces if I think there is a good possibility that I will need to swap out the implementations in the future. That being said, I usually organize my helper libraries into specific infrastructure contexts (eg. MainContext.Web.MVC.Helpers or MainContext.Web.WebForms.Helpers.) These rarely change and I have yet to come across an instance where I needed to swap out implementations entirely.
5) From my understanding, it is perfectly valid to use interfaces instead of concretes for your domain entities. That being said, I have yet to run into a case where I needed different implementations for my domain entities. The only reason I can even think of would be if you needed to change your business logic for one application, but leave an older application using the original business logic. If your business objects are good models for the domain, I can't fathom you actually running into this problem, but I have seen examples where people do this just for the sake of the abstraction. IMHO, that is not worth the extra coding effort, but if it makes you feel good inside or you get some actual benefit (eg. making testing easier), there isn't any reason why you can't abstract out your domain entities. That being said, domain services and repositories should definitely have contracts that allows you to swap out their implementations.
Answer 5 is derived from the idea that the application is the one who chooses the implementations. If you are trying to achieve onion architecture, then your application is going to be choosing the concrete implementations for everything (repositories, domain services, and other abstracted implementation concerns). I see no reason why it can't just use domain aggregates directly since they are the concrete representation of your domain model. (Note: All entities should be encapsulated into aggregates. The application should never be able to hold a reference to an entity that is not an aggregate under the context)
I have a ASP.Net MVC 3 photo gallery, which is designed in this way:
Data Repositories(IImageRepoSitory, ITagRepository etc)
|
Services (IGalleryService, IWebService etc)
|
Web Application
Which I use Ninject to inject the required Services and repositories into the web application.
Before I use actual database, I used a simple ArrayList (and JSON serialization) as my presistent logic (That will be JsonImageRepository/JSonTagRepository) which works perfectly fine. But later on, I moved to EF4 CTP5 (Code First), and many problems appeared. Basically, I injected those repositories and services as Singleton (which declared in Global.asax.cs), but when I have several threads that access the repositories, it saids:
Data Connection is closed.
I changed to something like Thread Mode or Request Mode in Ninject but various exception raised (regarding to multiple instances of context, so I think Singleton should be the only option).
Is there anything wrong with the design? or how should I configure those components?
Normally, repository access should be in request scope (at least the ones that change data). I recommend looking at bob's blog posts about a repository pattern implementation using Ninject and NHibernate. It should be pretty much the same for EF4:
http://blog.bobcravens.com/2010/06/the-repository-pattern-with-linq-to-fluent-nhibernate-and-mysql/
http://blog.bobcravens.com/2010/07/using-nhibernate-in-asp-net-mvc/
http://blog.bobcravens.com/2010/09/the-repository-pattern-part-2/
I planned adding this to the sample application in near future.