In my application i am using StructureMap with EntityFramework.
Well, my ioc config looks like :
x.For<IDbContext>().Use(c => new DbContext(AppSettings.ConnectionString));
x.For<IManager>().Singleton().Use<DefaultManagerImplementation);
x.For<IManagerService>().Use<DefaultManagerServiceImplementation>();
My problem is about disposing DbContext instance, which one is use in IManagerService.
IManagerService :
using(var ctx = new DbContext(AppSettings.ConnectionString)
{
// works fine
ctx.
ctx.save();
}
public class ManagerService : IManagerService
{
private readonly IDbContext _dbContext;
public ManagerService(IDbcontext dbContext)
{
// not works, because DbContext is not disposed?
_dbContext = dbContext; // inject
...
_dbContext.Get... return old data
}
}
Well, is here any change to force dispose object which lives in singleton instance in structure map?
Thanks
You won't get any automatic disposing of this object because as far as your container is concerned, you're still using it. There are two options here:
Explicitly call .Dispose() on the DbContext when you're finished with it. You won't be able to use the DbContext anywhere else within your Singleton, since the object is now gone.
Instead of taking a dependency on DbContext, take a dependency on Func<DbContext> (or some other factory interface). I'm not sure about StructureMap, but other IoC containers handle Func automatically as long as you've registered T, so this shouldn't need any new dependencies. This would change your constructor to the following:
public class ManagerService : IManagerService
{
private readonly Func<IDbContext> _dbContextFactory;
public ManagerService(Func<IDbContext> dbContextFactory)
{
_dbContextFactory = dbContextFactory; // inject
using (var context = _dbContextFactory())
{
...
// Do stuff with your context here
} // It will be disposed of here
using (var context = _dbContextFactory())
{
// ...and here's another context for you
}
}
}
Related
I know that one way to use a context is via the using statement.
I use it like so within my controllers
[ApiController]
public class MyController : ControllerBase
{
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult PostActionHere(ActionRequestClass request)
{
using (var context = new MyEntityFrameworkContext())
{
....
// use context here
context.SaveChanges()
....
}
}
}
I would like to start injecting it into my controller. Mainly because I think it is easier to read and is more uniform with .NET Core dependency injection.
[ApiController]
public class MyController : ControllerBase
{
private MyEntityFrameworkContext _myDb;
public MyController(MyEntityFrameworkContext myDb)
{
_myDb = myDb;
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult PostActionHere(ActionRequestClass request)
{
....
// use context here
_myDb.SaveChanges()
....
}
}
Within my startup.cs:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddDbContext<MyEntityFrameworkContext >(options =>
options.UseSqlServer(Configuration.GetConnectionString("MyEntityFrameworkDatabase")));
}
What I am worried about is that injecting it I lose the disposal properties that come with the using statement. Is that true? Feel free to suggest alternate approaches.
injecting it I lose the disposal properties that come with the using statement. Is that true?
No:
The AddDbContext extension method registers DbContext types with a
scoped lifetime by default.
Configuring a DbContext
And when the scope (here the HttpRequest) ends, the Scoped Lifetime object will be Disposed.
I am using Unity and Entity Framework in a Web API 2 application. I register types with the HierarchicalLifetimeManager.
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<IService, Service>(new HierarchicalLifetimeManager());
Do I need to wrap all my dbContext calls in a using statement like this? Is this needed? I thought Unity will dispose the context for me.
using (var client = new dbContext())
{
var result = client.Customers.toList();
}
Or can I just use dbContext without the using statement?
Do I need to wrap all my dbContext calls in a using statement like
this?
I would say that it depends on how you use your context. Take this example:
public class Service : IService, IDisposable
{
private DbContext _context;
public Service(DbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public object Get(int id)
{
return _context.Customers.Find(id);
}
public object Update(object obj)
{
// Code for updating
}
public void Dispose()
{
_context.Dispose();
}
}
If you register Service with HierarchicalLifetimeManager the context will practially never be disposed, since nothing will dispose the service and thus never dispose the context. However, the example above should work fine with TransientLifetimeManager.
From MSDN:
HierarchicalLifetimeManager. For this lifetime manager, as for the
ContainerControlledLifetimeManager, Unity returns the same instance of
the registered type or object each time you call the Resolve or
ResolveAll method or when the dependency mechanism injects instances
into other classes.
If you instead dispose it in each method, then it will be correctly disposed regardless of what lifetimemanager you use. Also, the consumer of IService doesn't need to care about disposing IService.
public class Service : IService
{
public object Get(int id)
{
using (var context = new DbContext())
{
return context.Customers.Find(id);
}
}
public object Update(object obj)
{
// Code for updating
}
}
Also, consider what happens if your Service was Transient, and is injected in a manager that is ContainerController. Since the manager never is disposed, neither is the service. The manager will keep the same instance of the service throughout the lifetime of the container. Therefore I personally suggest that you keep the disposing of the context outside of the containers control. It can work very well with the help of lifetimemanagers if you make sure that you have a chain of disposings. There are several posts here and on codereview that show examples of UoW with Unity to dispose the context.
I'd like to intercept var context = new MyDbContext() to return a different constructor call instead.
The great thing about EFfort is that it let's you set up an easy in-memory database for unit testing.
var connection = Effort.DbConnectionFactory.CreateTransient();
var testContext = new MyDbContext(connection);
But then you'd have to inject that context into your repository.
public FooRepository(MyDbContext context) { _context = context; }
Is it possible to just intercept var context = new MyDbContext() , so that it returns the testContext?
using (var context = new MyDbContext()) {
// this way, my code isn't polluted with a ctor just for testing
}
You have two possible options. Using factories or via Aspect oriented programming (like PostSharp)
referencing this article: http://www.progware.org/Blog/post/Interception-and-Interceptors-in-C-(Aspect-oriented-programming).aspx
Using PostSharp (AOP)
PostSharp is a great tool and can achieve the most clean interception
possible (meaning no changes in your classes and object generation at
all even if you do not your factories for object creation and/or
interfaces) but it is not a free library. Rather than creating proxies
at runtime, it injects code at compile time and therefore changes your
initial program in a seamless way to add method interception.
.....
The cool thing in this is that you do not change anything else in your
code, so your object can be still generated using the new keyword.
Using DI and Factory-pattern
I personally prefer the factory-pattern approach, but you seem apposed to having to inject any dependencies into your classes.
public interface IDbContextFactory<T> where T : DbContext {
T Create();
}
public class TestDbContextFactory : IDbContextFactory<MyDbContext> {
public MyDbContext Create() {
var connection = Effort.DbConnectionFactory.CreateTransient();
var testContext = new MyDbContext(connection);
return testContext;
}
}
public class FooRepository {
MyDbContext _context;
public FooRepository(IDbContextFactory<MyDbContext> factory) {
_context = factory.Create();
}
}
(edit: I just realized this isn't actually returning the other ctor call. working on it.)
Figured it out. Simple enough if you know how to do it:
[TestMethod]
public void Should_have_a_name_like_this()
{
// Arrange
var connection = Effort.DbConnectionFactory.CreateTransient();
ShimSolrDbContext.Constructor = context => new SolrDbContext(connection);
// Act
// Assert
}
And as usual, EFfort requires this constructor in the DbContext class:
public class SomeDbContext
{
public SomeDbContext() : base("name=Prod")
{
}
// EFfort unit testing ctor
public SomeDbContext(DbConnection connection) : base(connection, contextOwnsConnection: true) {
Database.SetInitializer<SolrDbContext>(null);
}
}
But it means the repo is blissfully unaware of the special Transient connection:
public class SomeRepository
{
public void SomeMethodName()
{
using (var context = new SomeDbContext())
{
// self-contained in repository, no special params
// and still calls the special test constructor
}
}
}
I am running into an issue where I can't figure out how to properly dispose of my object context I am creating every time I instantiate a new object.
public class OrderBLL{
var _iOrderLineDal;
public OrderBLL(){
_iOderLineDal = new OrderLineDal(new entityOBject(dbconnectionstring);
}
public OrderBLL(iOrderLineDal mockOrderLineDal){
_iOrderLineDal = mockOrderLineDal;
}
}
So the problem is, that every 30 seconds my service creates a new instance of the OrderBLL and then runs a method to see if there are any new orders in the Data base.
So every 30 seconds I create a new entityObject that is not being disposed of. the old implementation of the code was written using the using statement.
public bool HasNewOrders(){
using(var entityObject = new entityObject(dbconnectionString)){
var newOrders = entityObject.GetNewOrders();
}
//some logic
}
The problem with using this using statement is I cannot mock out the entityObject and easily write unit tests on any methods inside this OrderBLL class.
I tried disposing of it with a dispose method inside the OrderLineDal and once i got the data called dispose. That worked well the first iteration but the following iterations, the next 30 seconds, it would say that the entityObject was disposed of and cannot be used. (doesn't make sense to me, since I am creating a new one every time?)
Is there a way I can implement this repository pattern and still dispose of all the new entityObjects so I can mock the DAL out for unit testing?
I am working with EF 4. and it was not set up Code First, so I do not have POCO.
Ideally you would want to create your context outside of your OrderBLL (search google for Repository pattern).
public class OrderRepository : IOrderRepository, IDisposable
{
private readonly IOrderDBContext _dbContext;
// poor mans dependency injection
public OrderRepository() : this(new OrderDbContext("YourConnectionString")
{}
public OrderRepository(IOrderDBContext dbContext)
{
if (dbContext == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("dbContext");
_dbContext = dbContext;
}
public bool GetNewOrders(){
return _dbContext.Orders.Where(o => o.IsNew==true);
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_dbContext != null) _dbContext.dispose();
}
}
public class OrderBLL : IOrderBLL
{
private readonly IOrderRepository _repository;
public OrderRepository(IOrderRepository repository)
{
if (repository == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("dbContext");
_repository = repository;
}
public bool HasNewOrders(){
var newOrders = _repository.GetNewOrders();
if (newOrders==null) return false;
return newOrders.Count() > 0;
}
}
[Test]
public void HasNewOrders_GivenNoNNewOrdersRetunedFromRepo_ReturnsFalse()
{
// test using nunit and nsubstitute
// Arrange
var repository = Substitue.For<IOrderRepository>();
var emptyOrderList = new List<Order>();
repository.GetNewOrders().Returns();
var orderBLL = new OrderBLL(repository);
// Act
var result = orderBLL.HasNewOrders();
// Assert
Assert.Equals(false, result);
}
Now you can inject your context into this class and easily test your business logic. Eventually you will need to create your dbContext and should also always expose this. I would suggest having a look at a DI container like Castle Windsor to manage the life of your objects, although in a service you may just want to manually create and dispose your context as close to the code entry point as possible (e.g. in the main method)
I'm using StructureMap to resolve references to my repository class. My repository interface implements IDisposable, e.g.
public interface IMyRepository : IDisposable
{
SomeClass GetById(int id);
}
An implementation of the interface using Entity Framework:
public MyRepository : IMyRepository
{
private MyDbContext _dbContext;
public MyDbContext()
{
_dbContext = new MyDbContext();
}
public SomeClass GetById(int id)
{
var query = from x in _dbContext
where x.Id = id
select x;
return x.FirstOrDefault();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_dbContext.Dispose();
}
}
Anyway as mentioned I'm using StructureMap to resolve IMyRepository. So when, where and how should I call my dispose method?
WARNING: please note that my views have changed, and you should consider the following advise outdated. Please see this answer for an updated view: https://stackoverflow.com/a/30287923/264697
While DI frameworks can manage lifetime of objects for you and some could even dispose objects for you after you're done using with them, it makes object disposal just too implicit. The IDisposable interface is created because there was the need of deterministic clean-up of resources. Therefore, in the context of DI, I personally like to make this clean-up very explicit. When you make it explicit, you've got basically two options: 1. Configure the DI to return transient objects and dispose these objects yourself. 2. Configure a factory and instruct the factory to create new instances.
I favor the second approach over the first, because especially when doing Dependency Injection, your code isn't as clean as it could be. Look for instance at this code:
public sealed class Client : IDisposable
{
private readonly IDependency dependency;
public Client(IDependency dependency)
{
this. dependency = dependency;
}
public void Do()
{
this.dependency.DoSomething();
}
public Dispose()
{
this.dependency.Dispose();
}
}
While this code explicitly disposes the dependency, it could raise some eyebrows to readers, because resources should normally only be disposed by the owner of the resource. Apparently, the Client became the owner of the resource, when it was injected.
Because of this, I favor the use of a factory. Look for instance at this example:
public sealed class Client
{
private readonly IDependencyFactory factory;
public Client(IDependencyFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public void Do()
{
using (var dependency = this.factory.CreateNew())
{
dependency.DoSomething();
}
}
}
This example has the exact same behavior as the previous example, but see how the Client class doesn't have to implement IDisposable anymore, because it creates and disposes the resource within the Do method.
Injecting a factory is the most explicit way (the path of least surprise) to do this. That's why I prefer this style. Downside of this is that you often need to define more classes (for your factories), but I personally don't mind.
RPM1984 asked for a more concrete example.
I would not have the repository implement IDisposable, but have a Unit of Work that implements IDisposable, controls/contains repositories and have a factory that knows how to create new unit of works. With that in mind, the above code would look like this:
public sealed class Client
{
private readonly INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory factory;
public Client(INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public void Do()
{
using (NorthwindUnitOfWork db =
this.factory.CreateNew())
{
// 'Customers' is a repository.
var customer = db.Customers.GetById(1);
customer.Name = ".NET Junkie";
db.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
In the design I use, and have described here, I use a concrete NorthwindUnitOfWork class that wraps an IDataMapper that is the gateway to the underlying LINQ provider (such as LINQ to SQL or Entity Framework). In sumary, the design is as follows:
An INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory is injected in a client.
The particular implementation of that factory creates a concrete NorthwindUnitOfWork class and injects a O/RM specific IDataMapper class into it.
The NorthwindUnitOfWork is in fact a type-safe wrapper around the IDataMapper and the NorthwindUnitOfWork requests the IDataMapper for repositories and forwards requests to submit changes and dispose to the mapper.
The IDataMapper returns Repository<T> classes and a repository implements IQueryable<T> to allow the client to use LINQ over the repository.
The specific implementation of the IDataMapper holds a reference to the O/RM specific unit of work (for instance EF's ObjectContext). For that reason the IDataMapper must implement IDisposable.
This results in the following design:
public interface INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory
{
NorthwindUnitOfWork CreateNew();
}
public interface IDataMapper : IDisposable
{
Repository<T> GetRepository<T>() where T : class;
void Save();
}
public abstract class Repository<T> : IQueryable<T>
where T : class
{
private readonly IQueryable<T> query;
protected Repository(IQueryable<T> query)
{
this.query = query;
}
public abstract void InsertOnSubmit(T entity);
public abstract void DeleteOnSubmit(T entity);
// IQueryable<T> members omitted.
}
The NorthwindUnitOfWork is a concrete class that contains properties to specific repositories, such as Customers, Orders, etc:
public sealed class NorthwindUnitOfWork : IDisposable
{
private readonly IDataMapper mapper;
public NorthwindUnitOfWork(IDataMapper mapper)
{
this.mapper = mapper;
}
// Repository properties here:
public Repository<Customer> Customers
{
get { return this.mapper.GetRepository<Customer>(); }
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.mapper.Dispose();
}
}
What's left is an concrete implementation of the INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory and a concrete implementation of the IDataMapper. Here's one for Entity Framework:
public class EntityFrameworkNorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory
: INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory
{
public NorthwindUnitOfWork CreateNew()
{
var db = new ObjectContext("name=NorthwindEntities");
db.DefaultContainerName = "NorthwindEntities";
var mapper = new EntityFrameworkDataMapper(db);
return new NorthwindUnitOfWork(mapper);
}
}
And the EntityFrameworkDataMapper:
public sealed class EntityFrameworkDataMapper : IDataMapper
{
private readonly ObjectContext context;
public EntityFrameworkDataMapper(ObjectContext context)
{
this.context = context;
}
public void Save()
{
this.context.SaveChanges();
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.context.Dispose();
}
public Repository<T> GetRepository<T>() where T : class
{
string setName = this.GetEntitySetName<T>();
var query = this.context.CreateQuery<T>(setName);
return new EntityRepository<T>(query, setName);
}
private string GetEntitySetName<T>()
{
EntityContainer container =
this.context.MetadataWorkspace.GetEntityContainer(
this.context.DefaultContainerName, DataSpace.CSpace);
return (
from item in container.BaseEntitySets
where item.ElementType.Name == typeof(T).Name
select item.Name).First();
}
private sealed class EntityRepository<T>
: Repository<T> where T : class
{
private readonly ObjectQuery<T> query;
private readonly string entitySetName;
public EntityRepository(ObjectQuery<T> query,
string entitySetName) : base(query)
{
this.query = query;
this.entitySetName = entitySetName;
}
public override void InsertOnSubmit(T entity)
{
this.query.Context.AddObject(entitySetName, entity);
}
public override void DeleteOnSubmit(T entity)
{
this.query.Context.DeleteObject(entity);
}
}
}
You can find more information about this model here.
UPDATE December 2012
This an an update written two years after my original answer. The last two years much has changed in the way I try to design the systems I'm working on. Although it has suited me in the past, I don't like to use the factory approach anymore when dealing with the Unit of Work pattern. Instead I simply inject a Unit of Work instance into consumers directly. Whether this design is feasibly for you however, depends a lot on the way your system is designed. If you want to read more about this, please take a look at this newer Stackoverflow answer of mine: One DbContext per web request…why?
If you want to get it right, i'd advise on a couple of changes:
1 - Don't have private instances of the data context in the repository. If your working with multiple repositories then you'll end up with multiple contexts.
2 - To solve the above - wrap the context in a Unit of Work. Pass the unit of work to the Repositories via the ctor: public MyRepository(IUnitOfWork uow)
3 - Make the Unit of Work implement IDisposable. The Unit of Work should be "newed up" when a request begins, and therefore should be disposed when the request finishes. The Repository should not implement IDisposable, as it is not directly working with resources - it is simply mitigating them. The DataContext / Unit of Work should implement IDispoable.
4 - Assuming you are using a web application, you do not need to explicitly call dispose - i repeat, you do not need to explicitly call your dispose method. StructureMap has a method called HttpContextBuildPolicy.DisposeAndClearAll();. What this does is invoke the "Dispose" method on any HTTP-scoped objects that implement IDisposable. Stick this call in Application_EndRequest (Global.asax). Also - i believe there is an updated method, called ReleaseAllHttpScopedObjects or something - can't remember the name.
Instead of adding Dispose to IMyRepository, you could declare IMyRepository like this:
public interface IMyRepository: IDisposable
{
SomeClass GetById(int id);
}
This way, you ensure all repository will call Dispose sometimes, and you can use the C# "using" pattern on a Repository object:
using (IMyRepository rep = GetMyRepository(...))
{
... do some work with rep
}