Zend Expressive Dependency Injection - zend-framework

If you want to have another middleware/object in a middleware
you have to use a factory like
namespace App\Somnething;
use Interop\Container\ContainerInterface;
class MyMiddlewareFactory
{
public function __invoke(ContainerInterface $container, $requestedName)
{
return new $requestedName(
$container->get(\App\Path\To\My\Middleware::class)
);
}
}
So MyMiddleware would have been injected with \App\Path\To\My\Middleware and we would be able to access it.
Question:
would it be wrong to inject the middleware with the app itself or the container? Like:
namespace App\Somnething;
use Interop\Container\ContainerInterface;
use Zend\Expressive\Application;
class MyMiddlewareFactory
{
public function __invoke(ContainerInterface $container, $requestedName)
{
return new $requestedName(
$container->get(Application::class)
);
}
}
This way it would be possible to get anything ~on the fly.
Like
namespace App\Somnething;
use Zend\Expressive\Application;
class MyMiddleware
{
/** #var Application $app */
protected $app;
public function __construct(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
}
public function __invoke($some, $thing)
{
if ($some and $thing) {
$ever = $this->app
->getContainer()
->get(\Path\To\What\Ever::class);
$ever->doSome();
}
}
}

You don't inject middleware into other middleware. You inject dependencies like services or repositories. Each middleware takes care of a specifc task like authentication, authorization, localization negotiation, etc. They are executed one after the other. They mess around with the request and pass the request to the next middleware. Once the middleware stack has been exhausted, the response is returned all the way back through all the middleware in reverse order until it finally reaches the outer layer which displays the output. You can find a flow overview in the expressive docs.
I wouldn't advice to inject the container and certainly not the app itself. Although it might be easy during development, your application becomes untestable. If you inject only the services that are needed into a middleware, action or service you can easily mock those during tests. After a while you get used to writing factories where needed and it goes pretty fast.
The same goes for injecting the entity manager (if you use doctrine). It's easier to test an application if you only inject the needed repositories, which you can easily mock.
Having said this, if you are looking for an easy way to inject dependencies, zend-servicemanager can do that. Take a look at abstract factories. With an abstract factory you can create one factory for all your action classes:
<?php
namespace App\Action;
use Interop\Container\ContainerInterface;
use ReflectionClass;
use Zend\ServiceManager\Factory\AbstractFactoryInterface;
class AbstractActionFactory implements AbstractFactoryInterface
{
public function __invoke(ContainerInterface $container, $requestedName, array $options = null)
{
// Construct a new ReflectionClass object for the requested action
$reflection = new ReflectionClass($requestedName);
// Get the constructor
$constructor = $reflection->getConstructor();
if (is_null($constructor)) {
// There is no constructor, just return a new class
return new $requestedName;
}
// Get the parameters
$parameters = $constructor->getParameters();
$dependencies = [];
foreach ($parameters as $parameter) {
// Get the parameter class
$class = $parameter->getClass();
// Get the class from the container
$dependencies[] = $container->get($class->getName());
}
// Return the requested class and inject its dependencies
return $reflection->newInstanceArgs($dependencies);
}
public function canCreate(ContainerInterface $container, $requestedName)
{
// Only accept Action classes
if (substr($requestedName, -6) == 'Action') {
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
I wrote a blog post about that.
At the end of the day it's your own decision, but best practice is not injecting the app, container or the entity manager. It will make your life easier if you need to debug your middleware and / or write tests for it.

Injecting the application or container in your middleware is possible but it is not good idea at all:
1) Inversion Of Control (IoC)
It violated the inversion of control principle, your class must not have any knowledge about the IoC container.
2) Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)
Dependency inversion principle states that "high-level modules should not depend on low-level modules", so your higher level middleware class depends on the infrastructure/framework.
3) Law of Demeter (LoD)
According to the law of demeter, the unit should have limited knowledge about other units, it should know only about its closely related units.
The MyMiddleware::class has too much knowledge other units, first of all, it knows about the Application::class, then it knows that the Application knows about the Container, then it knows that the Container knows about the What\Ever::class and so on.
This kind of code violates some of the most important OOP principles, leads to horrible coupling with the framework, it has implicit dependencies and least but not last, it is hard to be read and understood.

Related

Symfony controllers

I have the task of implementing an Api with FOSRestBundle, but a have told explicitly I can't use inheritance on my controllers, and also i can't use the service container(It's supposed to make the API lighter). Without the extend on the controllers I can't access the AbstractController methods and without the service container my controllers are practically isolated. Is this a viable choice or is an insane? Any advise?
Not crazy though I would have expected that the same people who told you how not to do things would have also offered some advice on how to do them.
One approach is to break up the ControllerTrait (aka AbstractController) into smaller traits.
For example:
trait RouterTrait
{
/** #var RouterInterface */
protected $router;
/** #required NOTE THIS */
public function setRouter(RouterInterface $router)
{
$this->router = $router;
}
protected function generateUrl(
string $route,
array $parameters = array(),
int $referenceType = UrlGeneratorInterface::ABSOLUTE_PATH): string
{
return $this->router->generate($route, $parameters, $referenceType);
}
protected function redirect($url, $status = 302) : RedirectResponse ...
protected function redirectToRoute($route, array $parameters = array(), $status = 302) : RedirectResponse ...
The #required before the setRouter method is a little used annotation which causes the router service to be automatically injected by the container.
At this point, any controller or any other service that uses the router trait will have access to the router helper functions.
For example:
class UserCreateAction implements ActionInterface
{
use GuidTrait;
use RouterTrait;
...
public function __invoke(Request $request)
{
...
return $this->redirectToRoute('reg_person_register');
Composition over inheritance can be a good thing.
One final off-topic piece of advice. There is little or no reason to use FOSRestBundle anymore unless it is to support legacy projects. The Symfony based API Platform is really the goto solution for new projects.

Autofac intentional circular dependency

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.

In Symfony where should I put entity dependant functions

I have this code in my controller, it takes 'procedure_type' from the request and checks to see if a ProcedureType with that name exists. If it does it uses the object, if not it creates a new ProcedureType, then return the new object to use.
// Check the typed in ProcedureType against existing types.
$procedureTypes = $entityManager->getRepository('IncompassSurgeryBundle:ProcedureType')->findBy(array('name' => $request->request->get('procedure_type'), 'vendor' => $vendorId));
if (empty($procedureTypes)) {
// Create Procedure Type
$procedureType = new ProcedureType();
$procedureType->setVendor($vendor)
->setName($request->request->get('procedure_type'))
->setCreated(new \DateTime())
->setUpdated($procedureType->getCreated());
$entityManager->persist($procedureType);
} else {
$procedureType = $procedureTypes[0];
}
I don't think this is the best way to do this, I'd like to move the code into a function, say checkProcedureType(), but I don't know where the best place is to put that. I don't think it could go in the Entity or Repository classes, and moving it to a private function in the controller doesn't feel right.
I'm sure there is a class type that I'm not aware of, that extends the Entity. Or maybe I should just put these functions in my entity classes.
Service are the answer to almost everything in Symfony 2. Create a service like this :
namespace Your\Bundle\Service;
class ProcedureService // Call this the way you want
{
protected $entityManager;
public function __construct($entityManager)
{
$this->entityManager = $entityManager;
}
public function callMeTheWayYouWant($vendorId, $vendor)
{
// Check the typed in ProcedureType against existing types.
$procedureTypes = $this->entityManager->getRepository('IncompassSurgeryBundle:ProcedureType')->findBy(array('name' => $request->request->get('procedure_type'), 'vendor' => $vendorId));
if (empty($procedureTypes)) {
// Create Procedure Type
$procedureType = new ProcedureType();
$procedureType->setVendor($vendor)
->setName($request->request->get('procedure_type'))
->setCreated(new \DateTime())
->setUpdated($procedureType->getCreated());
$this->entityManager->persist($procedureType);
} else {
$procedureType = $procedureTypes[0];
}
// The rest of your code
}
}
In your services.yml file :
your_service:
class: Your\Bundle\Service\ProcedureService
arguments: [#doctrine.orm.entity_manager]
Then use it in your controller :
$this->get('your_service')->callMeTheWayYouWant($vendorId, $vendor);
If logic is somehow related to acessing database I always go for repository. However, if cases like yours, I tend to analyze it's dependency map.
Does your code repeats in some other method within same class, only?
If so, go for private method.
Is this part of code reused somewhere else but does not rely on some services?
You could externalize logic by creating separate class and static method which executes the code. Beware: Tends to get messy really quick
Finally, does your code rely on services/configuration?
Create a separate service, inject the services/configuration and invoke it's method. Adds a bit of overhead, if your abuse it, but you should be fine
Personally, in your example, I would go for private method, but that's just my opinion.

How to work with dependency injection within SOA?

I'm currently using SOA, I've a bunch of Service, (ArticleService, CommentService, UserService, etc..)
I also have a ConfigurationService which is filled from an XML configuration file.
I'm using Zend Framework.
THis configuration service is needed in some of my service, and I'm using dependency injection, is it a good practice, to add ConfigurationService in constructor of most my Service to be able to fetch global configuration?
Thank you for your feedbacks.
I would say, no, don't pass the config container - neither as a service nor as an array nor a Zend_Config instance - in the constructor of your other services. I would keep the injection (whether by constructor or by setter) for those services focused on the actual objects/collaborators/data they actually need.
So, for example, an ArticleService might depend upon an ArticleRepository interface/object or on an ArticleMapper or on a db adapter. Let the constructor/setter signatures for the ArticleService reflect what it truly needs.
Instead, what I would do is during Bootstrap, create some kind of factory object - perhaps as an application resource - that accepts in its constructor your config data/object/service (or even better, the bootstrap instance itself, from which you could get, not just your config data, but also any application resources, like a db adapter, that were created during the bootstrap process). Then write methods on your factory object that create/deliver the other services you need. Internally, the factory maintains a registry of already created services so that it can lazy-create instances where required.
A snippet of what I have in mind might be as follows:
Bootstrap snippet:
class Bootstrap extends Zend_Application_Bootstrap_Bootstrap
{
protected function _initFactory()
{
$factory = new My_Factory($this);
return $factory;
}
}
Then the factory:
class My_Factory
{
protected $_registry;
protected $_bootstrap;
public function __constructor($bootstrap)
{
$this->_bootstrap = $bootstrap;
}
public function getDbAdapter()
{
if (!isset($this->_registry['dbAdapter']){
$this->_bootstrap->bootstrap('db'); // probably using app resource
$this->_registry['dbAdapter'] = $This->_bootstrap->getResource('db');
}
return $this->_registry['dbAdapter'];
}
public function getArticleService()
{
if (!isset($this->_registry['articleService']){
$dbAdapter = $this->getDbAdapter();
$this->_registry['articleService'] = new My_ArticleService($dbAdapter);
}
return $this->_registry['articleService'];
}
public function getTwitterService()
{
if (!isset($this->_registry['twitterService']){
$options = $this->_bootstrap->getOptions();
$user = $options['twitter']['user'];
$pass = $options['twitter']['pass'];
$this->_registry['twitterService'] = new My_TwitterService($user, $pass);
}
return $this->_registry['twitterService'];
}
}
Then in a controller, you could grab an ArticleService instance:
class SomeController extends Zend_Controller_Action
{
protected $_factory;
public function init()
{
$this->_factory = $this->getInvokeArg('bootstrap')->getResource('factory');
}
public function someAction()
{
$articleService = $this->_factory->getArticleService();
$this->view->articles = $articleService->getRecentArticles(5); // for example
}
}
The upshot here is that each service explicitly identifies the collaborators it needs and the factory is a single place that takes care of creating/injecting all those collaborators.
Finally, I confess that I am just spitballing here. To me, this is essentially a rudimentary dependency injection container; in that sense, using a fully-featured DIC - perhaps the Symfony DIC or the new Zend\Di package in ZF2 - might be better. But after many months of struggling with all the best-practice recommendations to inject your dependencies, this is what I have come up with. If it's goofy or just plain wrong, please (please!) straighten me out. ;-)

Replace registration in Autofac

I have an application which does data processing. There is
class Pipeline {
IEnumerable<IFilter> Filters {get; set;}
I register filters implementations as
builder.RegisterType<DiversityFilter>().As<IFilter>();
builder.RegisterType<OverflowFilter>().As<IFilter>();
...
So far so good. Now, for experimentation and fine-tuning I want to be able to override any filter implementation in config file with a program(script) which would read data from stdin, process it and send data to stdout. I've implemented a module with "fileName", "args" and "insteadOf" custom properties, described module in xml and got it called.
In the module I register my "ExecutableFilter" but how do I make it run "instead of" desired service? If I try do it like this:
builder.RegisterType<ExecutableFilter>().As<DiversityFilter>()
then I get an exception " The type 'ExecutableFilter' is not assignable to service 'DiversityFilter'.". Ok, this is logical. But what are my options then?
Once you've overridden the registration for IFilter "After" with your wire-tap, you won't be able to resolve it from the container, as the new registration will be activated instead, hence the circular lookup.
Instead, create and register a module that hooks into the filter's creation, and replaces the instance with the 'wire tapped' one:
class WiretapModule : Module
{
override void AttachToComponentRegistration(
IComponentRegistration registration,
IComponentRegistry registry)
{
if (registration.Services.OfType<KeyedService>().Any(
s => s.ServiceKey == After && s.ServiceType == typeof(IFilter)))
{
registration.Activating += (s, e) => {
e.Instance = new WireTap((IFilter)e.Instance, new ExecuteProvider(fileName, args))
};
}
}
}
(Cross-posted to the Autofac group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/autofac/yLbTeuCObrU)
What you describe is part container work, part business logic. The challenge is to keep separation of concerns here. IMO, the container should do what it is supposed to do, that is building and serving up instances or collections thereof. It should not do the "instead of" in this case. I would rather "enrich" the services with enough information so that the pipeline make the decision.
The "enrichment" can be accomplished by making the ExecutableFilter implement a more distinct interface.
interface IInsteadOfFilter : IFilter { }
...
builder.RegisterType<ExecutableFilter>().As<IFilter>();
...
class Pipeline
{
IEnumerable<IFilter> Filters {get;set;}
public void DoTheFiltering()
{
var filters = Filters.OfType<IInsteadOfFilter>();
if (!insteadof.Any())
filters = Filters;
foreach(var filter in filters)
{
...
}
}
You could also solve this using the metadata infrastructure, which gives us an even more expressive way of differentiating services.