I have a console app that will create an instance of a class and execute a method on it, and that's really all it does (but this method may do a lot of things). The class is determined at runtime based on command line args, and this is registered to Autofac so it can be correctly resolved, supplying class-specific constructor parameters extracted from the command line. All this works.
Now, I need to impose a system-wide limit to the number of instances per class that can be running at any one time. I will probably use a simple SQL database to keep track of number of allowed and running instances per class, and I have no problem with the SQL side of things.
But how do I actually impose this limit in a nice manner using Autofac?
I am thinking that I would have some "slot service" that would do something like this:
Try to reserve a new instance "slot".
If no more slots, log a message and terminate the process.
If slot successfully reserved, create instance and return it.
My idea is also to free the instance's slot in the class' Dispose method, preferably by using another method on the slot service.
How would I fit this into Autofac?
One possibility would be to register the class I want to instantiate with a lambda/delegate that does the above steps. But in that case, how do I "terminate"? Throw an exception? That would require some code to catch the exception and either log it or simply ignore it before terminating the process. I don't like it. I'd like the entire slot reservation stuff inside the delegate, lambda or service.
Another solution might be to do the slot reservation outside of Autofac, but that also seems somewhat messy.
I would prefer a solution where the "slot service" itself can be nicely unit tested, i.e. non-static and with an interface, and preferably resolved with Autofac.
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here... Any suggestions?
This is my "best bet" so far:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ReadCommandLine(args, out Type itemClass, out Type paramsClass, out Type paramsInterface, out object parameters);
BuildContainer(itemClass, paramsClass, paramsInterface, parameters);
IInstanceHandler ih = Container.Resolve<IInstanceHandler>();
if (ih.RegisterInstance(itemClass, out long instanceid))
{
try
{
Container.Resolve<IItem>().Execute();
}
finally
{
ih.UnregisterInstance(itemClass, instanceid);
}
}
}
Related
I am developing a modular WPF application with Prism in .Net Core 5.0 (using MVVM, DryIoc) and I would like to have a module that is not a WPF module, i.e., a module with functionality that can be used by any other module. I don't want any project reference, because I want to keep the loosely coupled idea of the modules.
My first question is: is it conceptually correct? Or is it mandatory that a module has a screen? I guess it should be ok.
The second and more important (for me) is, what would be the best way to create the instance?
This is the project (I know I should review the names in this project):
HotfixSearcher is the main class, the one I need to get instantiated. In this class, for example, I subscribe to some events.
And this is the class that implements the IModule interface (the module class):
namespace SearchHotfix.Library
{
public class HotfixSearcherModule : IModule
{
public HotfixSearcherModule()
{
}
public void OnInitialized(IContainerProvider containerProvider)
{
//Create Searcher instance
var searcher = containerProvider.Resolve<IHotfixSearcher>();
}
public void RegisterTypes(IContainerRegistry containerRegistry)
{
containerRegistry.RegisterSingleton<IHotfixSearcher, HotfixSearcher>();
}
}
}
That is the only way I found to get the class instantiated, but I am not a hundred per cent comfortable with creating an instance that is not used, I think it does not make much sense.
For modules that have screens, the instances get created when navigating to them using the RequestNavigate method:
_regionManager.RequestNavigate(RegionNames.ContentRegion, "ContentView");
But since this is only a library with no screens, I can't find any other way to get this instantiated.
According to Prism documentation, subscribing to an event shoud be enough but I tried doing that from within my main class HotfixSearcher but it does not work (breakpoints on constructor or on the event handler of the event to which I subscribe are never hit).
When I do this way, instead, the instance is created, I hit the constructor breakpoint, and obviously the instance is subscribed to the event since it is done in the constructor.
To sum up, is there a way to get rid of that var searcher = containerProvider.Resolve<IHotfixSearcher>(); and a better way to achieve this?
Thanks in advance!
Or is it mandatory that a module has a screen?
No, of course not, modules have nothing to do with views or view models. They are just a set of registrations with the container.
what would be the best way to create the instance?
Let the container do the work. Normally, you have (at least) one assembly that only contains public interfaces (and the associated enums), but no modules. You reference that from the module and register the module's implementations of the relevant interfaces withing the module's Initialize method. Some other module (or the main app) can then have classes that get the interfaces as constructor parameters, and the container will resolve (i.e. create) the concrete types registered in the module, although they are internal or even private and completely unknown outside the module.
This is as loose a coupling as it gets if you don't want to sacrifice strong typing.
is there a way to get rid of that var searcher = containerProvider.Resolve<IHotfixSearcher>(); and a better way to achieve this?
You can skip the var searcher = part :-) But if the HotfixSearcher is never injected anywhere, it won't be created unless you do it yourself. OnInitialized is the perfect spot for this, because it runs after all modules had their chance to RegisterTypes so all dependencies should be registered.
If HotfixSearcher is not meant to be injected, you can also drop IHotfixSearcher and resolve HotfixSearcher directly:
public void OnInitialized(IContainerProvider containerProvider)
{
containerProvider.Resolve<HotfixSearcher>();
}
I am not a hundred per cent comfortable with creating an instance that is not used, I think it does not make much sense.
It is used, I suppose, although not through calling one of its methods. It's used by sending it an event. That's just fine. Think of it like Task.Run - it's fine for the task to exist in seeming isolation, too.
I've got a base class I'm using with MSpec which provides convenience methods around AutoMock:
public abstract class SubjectBuilderContext
{
static AutoMock _container;
protected static ISubjectBuilderConfigurationContext<T> BuildSubject<T>()
{
_container = AutoMock.GetLoose();
return new SubjectBuilderConfigurationContext<T>(_container);
}
protected static Mock<TDouble> GetMock<TDouble>()
where TDouble : class
{
return _container.Mock<TDouble>();
}
}
Occasionally, I'm seeing an exception happen when attempting to retrieve a Mock like so:
It should_store_the_receipt = () => GetMock<IFileService>().Verify(f => f.SaveFileAsync(Moq.It.IsAny<byte[]>(), Moq.It.IsAny<string>()), Times.Once());
Here's the exception:
System.ObjectDisposedExceptionInstances cannot be resolved and nested
lifetimes cannot be created from this LifetimeScope as it has already
been disposed.
I'm guessing it has something to do with the way MSpec runs the tests (via reflection) and that there's a period of time when nothing actively has references to any of the objects in the underlying lifetime scope being used by AutoMock which causes the lifetimescope to get disposed. What's going on here, and is there some simple way for me to keep it from happening?
The AutoMock lifetime scope from Autofac.Extras.Moq is disposed when the mock itself is disposed. If you're getting this, it means the AutoMock instance has been disposed or has otherwise lost scope and the GC has cleaned it up.
Given that, there are a few possibilities.
The first possibility is that you've got some potential threading challenges around async method calls. Looking at the method that's being mocked, I see you're verifying the call to a SaveFileAsync method. However, I don't see any async related code in there, and I'm not entirely sure when/how the tests running are calling it given the currently posted code, but if there is a situation where an async call causes the test to run on one thread while the AutoMock loses scope or otherwise gets killed on the other thread, I could see this happening.
The second possibility is the mix of static and instance items in the context. You are storing the AutoMock as a static, but it appears the context class in which it resides is a base class that is intended to supply instance-related values. If two tests run in parallel, for example, the first test will set the AutoMock to what it thinks it needs, then the second test will overwrite the AutoMock and the first will go out of scope, disposing the scope.
The third possibility is multiple calls to BuildSubject<T> in one test. The call to BuildSubject<T> initializes the AutoMock. If you call that multiple times in one test, despite changing the T type, you'll be stomping the AutoMock each time and the associated lifetime scope will be disposed.
The fourth possibility is a test ordering problem. If you only see it sometimes but not other times, it could be that certain tests inadvertently assume that some setup, like the call to BuildSubject<T>, has already been done; while other tests may not make that assumption and will call BuildSubject<T> themselves. Depending on the order the tests run, you may sometimes get lucky and not see the exception, but other times you may run into the problem where BuildSubject<T> gets called at just the wrong time and causes you pain.
Does anyone have any experience integrating autofac and Quartz.Net? If so, where is it best to control lifetime management -- the IJobFactory, within the Execute of the IJob, or through event listeners?
Right now, I'm using a custom autofac IJobFactory to create the IJob instances, but I don't have an easy way to plug in to a ILifetimeScope in the IJobFactory to ensure any expensive resources that are injected in the IJob are cleaned up. The job factory just creates an instance of a job and returns it. Here are my current ideas (hopefully there are better ones...)
It looks like most AutoFac integrations somehow wrap a ILifetimeScope around the unit of work they create. The obvious brute force way seems to be to pass an ILifetimeScope into the IJob and have the Execute method create a child ILifetimeScope and instantiate any dependencies there. This seems a little too close to a service locator pattern, which in turn seems to go against the spirit of autofac, but it might be the most obvious way to ensure proper handling of a scope.
I could plug into some of the Quartz events to handle the different phases of the Job execution stack, and handle lifetime management there. That would probably be a lot more work, but possibly worth it if it gets cleaner separation of concerns.
Ensure that an IJob is a simple wrapper around an IServiceComponent type, which would do all the work, and request it as Owned<T>, or Func<Owned<T>>. I like how this seems to vibe more with autofac, but I don't like that its not strictly enforceable for all implementors of IJob.
Without knowing too much about Quartz.Net and IJobs, I'll venture a suggestion still.
Consider the following Job wrapper:
public class JobWrapper<T>: IJob where T:IJob
{
private Func<Owned<T>> _jobFactory;
public JobWrapper(Func<Owned<T>> jobFactory)
{
_jobFactory = jobFactory;
}
void IJob.Execute()
{
using (var ownedJob = _jobFactory())
{
var theJob = ownedJob.Value;
theJob.Execute();
}
}
}
Given the following registrations:
builder.RegisterGeneric(typeof(JobWrapper<>));
builder.RegisterType<SomeJob>();
A job factory could now resolve this wrapper:
var job = _container.Resolve<JobWrapper<SomeJob>>();
Note: a lifetime scope will be created as part of the ownedJob instance, which in this case is of type Owned<SomeJob>. Any dependencies required by SomeJob that is InstancePerLifetimeScope or InstancePerDependency will be created and destroyed along with the Owned instance.
Take a look at https://github.com/alphacloud/Autofac.Extras.Quartz. It also available as NuGet package https://www.nuget.org/packages/Autofac.Extras.Quartz/
I know it a bit late:)
Okay, so here's a problem I'm running into.
I have some classes in my application that have methods that require a database connection. I am torn between two different ways to design the classes, both of which are centered around dependency injection:
Provide a property for the connection that is set by the caller prior to method invocation. This has a few drawbacks.
Every method relying on the connection property has to validate that property to ensure that it isn't null, it's open and not involved in a transaction if that's going to muck up the operation.
If the connection property is unexpectedly closed, all the methods have to either (1.) throw an exception or (2.) coerce it open. Depending on the level of robustness you want, either case is appropriate. (Note that this is different from a connection that is passed to a method in that the reference to the connection exists for the lifetime of the object, not simply for the lifetime of the method invocation. Consequently, the volatility of the connection just seems higher to me.)
Providing a Connection property seems (to me, anyway) to scream out for a corresponding Transaction property. This creates additional overhead in the documentation, since you'd have to make it fairly obvious when the transaction was being used, and when it wasn't.
On the other hand, Microsoft seems to favor the whole set-and-invoke paradigm.
Require the connection to be passed as an argument to the method. This has a few advantages and disadvantages:
The parameter list is naturally larger. This is irksome to me, primarily at the point of call.
While a connection (and a transaction) must still be validated prior to use, the reference to it exists only for the duration of the method call.
The point of call is, however, quite clear. It's very obvious that you must provide the connection, and that the method won't be creating one behind your back automagically.
If a method doesn't require a transaction (say a method that only retrieves data from the database), no transaction is required. There's no lack of clarity due to the method signature.
If a method requires a transaction, it's very clear due to the method signature. Again, there's no lack of clarity.
Because the class does not expose a Connection or a Transaction property, there's no chance of callers trying to drill down through them to their properties and methods, thus enforcing the Law of Demeter.
I know, it's a lot. But on the one hand, there's the Microsoft Way: Provide properties, let the caller set the properties, and then invoke methods. That way, you don't have to create complex constructors or factory methods and the like. Also, avoid methods with lots of arguments.
Then, there's the simple fact that if I expose these two properties on my objects, they'll tend to encourage consumers to use them in nefarious ways. (Not that I'm responsible for that, but still.) But I just don't really want to write crappy code.
If you were in my shoes, what would you do?
Here is a third pattern to consider:
Create a class called ConnectionScope, which provides access to a connection
Any class at any time, can create a ConnectionScope
ConnectionScope has a property called Connection, which always returns a valid connection
Any (and every) ConnectionScope gives access to the same underlying connection object (within some scope, maybe within the same thread, or process)
You then are free to implement that Connection property however you want, and your classes don't have a property that needs to be set, nor is the connection a parameter, nor do they need to worry about opening or closing connections.
More details:
In C#, I'd recommend ConnectionScope implement IDisposable, that way your classes can write code like "using ( var scope = new ConnectionScope() )" and then ConnectionScope can free the connection (if appropriate) when it is destroyed
If you can limit yourself to one connection per thread (or process) then you can easily set the connection string in a [thread] static variable in ConnectionScope
You can then use reference counting to ensure that your single connection is re-used when its already open and connections are released when no one is using them
Updated: Here is some simplified sample code:
public class ConnectionScope : IDisposable
{
private static Connection m_Connection;
private static int m_ReferenceCount;
public Connection Connection
{
get
{
return m_Connection;
}
}
public ConnectionScope()
{
if ( m_Connection == null )
{
m_Connection = OpenConnection();
}
m_ReferenceCount++;
}
public void Dispose()
{
m_ReferenceCount--;
if ( m_ReferenceCount == 0 )
{
m_Connection.Dispose();
m_Connection = null;
}
}
}
Example code of how one (any) of your classes would use it:
using ( var scope = new ConnectionScope() )
{
scope.Connection.ExecuteCommand( ... )
}
I would prefer the latter method. It sounds like your classes use the database connection as a conduit to the persistence layer. Making the caller pass in the database connection makes it clear that this is the case. If the connection/transaction were represented as a property of the object, then things are not so clear and all of the ownership and lifetime issues come out. Better to avoid them from the start.
I have a question, and I'm going to tag this subjective since that's what I think it evolves into, more of a discussion. I'm hoping for some good ideas or some thought-provokers. I apologize for the long-winded question but you need to know the context.
The question is basically:
How do you deal with concrete types in relation to IoC containers? Specifically, who is responsible for disposing them, if they require disposal, and how does that knowledge get propagated out to the calling code?
Do you require them to be IDisposable? If not, is that code future-proof, or is the rule that you cannot use disposable objects? If you enforce IDisposable-requirements on interfaces and concrete types to be future-proof, whose responsibility is objects injected as part of constructor calls?
Edit: I accepted the answer by #Chris Ballard since it's the closest one to the approach we ended up with.
Basically, we always return a type that looks like this:
public interface IService<T> : IDisposable
where T: class
{
T Instance { get; }
Boolean Success { get; }
String FailureMessage { get; } // in case Success=false
}
We then return an object implementing this interface back from both .Resolve and .TryResolve, so that what we get in the calling code is always the same type.
Now, the object implementing this interface, IService<T> is IDisposable, and should always be disposed of. It's not up to the programmer that resolves a service to decide whether the IService<T> object should be disposed or not.
However, and this is the crucial part, whether the service instance should be disposed or not, that knowledge is baked into the object implementing IService<T>, so if it's a factory-scoped service (ie. each call to Resolve ends up with a new service instance), then the service instance will be disposed when the IService<T> object is disposed.
This also made it possible to support other special scopes, like pooling. We can now say that we want minimum 2 service instances, maximum 15, and typically 5, which means that each call to .Resolve will either retrieve a service instance from a pool of available objects, or construct a new one. And then, when the IService<T> object that holds the pooled service is disposed of, the service instance is released back into its pool.
Sure, this made all code look like this:
using (var service = ServiceContainer.Global.Resolve<ISomeService>())
{
service.Instance.DoSomething();
}
but it's a clean approach, and it has the same syntax regardless of the type of service or concrete object in use, so we chose that as an acceptable solution.
Original question follows, for posterity
Long-winded question comes here:
We have a IoC container that we use, and recently we discovered what amounts to a problem.
In non-IoC code, when we wanted to use, say, a file, we used a class like this:
using (Stream stream = new FileStream(...))
{
...
}
There was no question as to whether this class was something that held a limited resource or not, since we knew that files had to be closed, and the class itself implemented IDisposable. The rule is simply that every class we construct an object of, that implements IDisposable, has to be disposed of. No questions asked. It's not up to the user of this class to decide if calling Dispose is optional or not.
Ok, so on to the first step towards the IoC container. Let's assume we don't want the code to talk directly to the file, but instead go through one layer of indirection. Let's call this class a BinaryDataProvider for this example. Internally, the class is using a stream, which is still a disposable object, so the above code would be changed to:
using (BinaryDataProvider provider = new BinaryDataProvider(...))
{
...
}
This doesn't change much. The knowledge that the class implements IDisposable is still here, no questions asked, we need to call Dispose.
But, let's assume that we have classes that provide data that right now doesn't use any such limited resources.
The above code could then be written as:
BinaryDataProvider provider = new BinaryDataProvider();
...
OK, so far so good, but here comes the meat of the question. Let's assume we want to use an IoC container to inject this provider instead of depending on a specific concrete type.
The code would then be:
IBinaryDataProvider provider =
ServiceContainer.Global.Resolve<IBinaryDataProvider>();
...
Note that I assume there is an independent interface available that we can access the object through.
With the above change, what if we later on want to use an object that really should be disposed of? None of the existing code that resolves that interface is written to dispose of the object, so what now?
The way we see it, we have to pick one solution:
Implement runtime checking that checks that if a concrete type that is being registered implements IDisposable, require that the interface it is exposed through also implements IDisposable. This is not a good solution
Enfore a constraint on the interfaces being used, they must always inherit from IDisposable, in order to be future-proof
Enforce runtime that no concrete types can be IDisposable, since this is specifically not handled by the code using the IoC container
Just leave it up to the programmer to check if the object implements IDisposable and "do the right thing"?
Are there others?
Also, what about injecting objects in constructors? Our container, and some of the other containers we've looked into, is capable of injecting a fresh object into a parameter to a constructor of a concrete type. For instance, if our BinaryDataProvider need an object that implements the ILogging interface, if we enforce IDispose-"ability" on these objects, whose responsibility is it to dispose of the logging object?
What do you think? I want opinions, good and bad.
One option might be to go with a factory pattern, so that the objects created directly by the IoC container never need to be disposed themselves, eg
IBinaryDataProviderFactory factory =
ServiceContainer.Global.Resolve<IBinaryDataProviderFactory>();
using(IBinaryDataProvider provider = factory.CreateProvider())
{
...
}
Downside is added complexity, but it does mean that the container never creates anything which the developer is supposed to dispose of - it is always explicit code which does this.
If you really want to make it obvious, the factory method could be named something like CreateDisposableProvider().
(Disclaimer: I'm answering this based on java stuff. Although I program C# I haven't proxied anything in C# but I know it's possible. Sorry about the java terminology)
You could let the IoC framework inspect the object being constructed to see if it supports
IDisposable. If not, you could use a dynamic proxy to wrap the actual object that the IoC framework provides to the client code. This dynamic proxy could implement IDisposable, so that you'd always deliver a IDisposable to the client. As long as you're working with interfaces that should be fairly simple ?
Then you'd just have the problem of communicating to the developer when the object is an IDisposable. I'm not really sure how this'd be done in a nice manner.
You actually came up with a very dirty solution: your IService contract violates the SRP, wich is a big no-no.
What I recommend is to distinguish so-called "singleton" services from so-called "prototype" services. Lifetime of "singleton" ones is managed by the container, which may query at runtime whether a particular instance implements IDisposable and invoke Dispose() on shutdown if so.
Managing prototypes, on the other hand, is totally the responsibility of the calling code.