What is the proper way to use Messenger class ?
I know it can be used for ViewModels/Views communications, but is it a good approach to use it in for a technical/business service layer ?
For example, a logging/navigation service registers for some messages in the constructors and is aware when these messages occurs in the app. The sender (ViewModel ou Service) does not reference the service interface but only messenger for sending messages. Here is a sample service :
using System;
using System.Windows;
using System.Windows.Navigation;
using Microsoft.Phone.Controls;
using App.Service.Interfaces;
using GalaSoft.MvvmLight.Messaging;
namespace App.Service
{
public class NavigationService : INavigationService
{
private PhoneApplicationFrame _mainFrame;
public event NavigatingCancelEventHandler Navigating;
public NavigationService()
{
Messenger.Default.Register<NotificationMessage<Uri>>(this, m => { this.NavigateTo(m.Content); });
}
public void NavigateTo(Uri pageUri)
{
if (EnsureMainFrame())
{
_mainFrame.Navigate(pageUri);
}
}
public void GoBack()
{
if (EnsureMainFrame()
&& _mainFrame.CanGoBack)
{
_mainFrame.GoBack();
}
}
private bool EnsureMainFrame()
{
if (_mainFrame != null)
{
return true;
}
_mainFrame = Application.Current.RootVisual as PhoneApplicationFrame;
if (_mainFrame != null)
{
// Could be null if the app runs inside a design tool
_mainFrame.Navigating += (s, e) =>
{
if (Navigating != null)
{
Navigating(s, e);
}
};
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
}
For me, the main use of a messenger is because it allows for communication between viewModels. Lets say you have a viewmodel that is used to provide business logic to a search function and 3 viewmodels on your page/window that want to process the search to show output, the messenger would be the ideal way to do this in a loosely-bound way.
The viewmodel that gets the search data would simply send a "search" message that would be consumed by anything that was currently registered to consume the message.
The benefits here are:
easy communication between viewmodels without each viewmodel having to know about each other
I can swap out the producer without affecting a consumer.
I can add more message consumers with little effort.
It keeps the viewmodels simple
Edit:
So, what about services?
ViewModels are all about how to present data to the UI. They take your data and shape it into something that can be presented to your View. ViewModels get their data from services.
A service provides the data and/or business logic to the ViewModel. The services job is to service business model requests. If a service needs to communicate/use other services to do its job these should be injected into the service using dependency injection. Services would not normally communicate with each other using a messenger. The messenger is very much about horizontal communication at the viewmodel level.
One thing I have seen done is to use a messenger as a mediator, where instead of injecting the service directly into a viewmodel the messenger is injected into the viewmodel instead. The viewmodel subscribes to an event and receives events containing models from the event. This is great if you're receiving a steady flow of updates or you're receiving updates from multiple services that you want to merge into a single stream.
Using a messenger instead of injecting a service when you're doing request/response type requests doesn't make any sense as you'll have to write more code to do this that you'd have to write just injecting the service directly and it makes the code hard to read.
Looking at your code, above. Imagine if you had to write an event for each method on there (Navigate, CanNavigate, GoBack, GoForward, etc). You'd end up with a lot of messages. Your code would also be harder to follow.
Related
Im learning WebFlux.
Wiki says that reactive programming is:
For example, in an imperative programming setting, a:=b+c would mean that a is being assigned the result of b+c in the instant the expression is evaluated, and later, the values of b and/or c can be changed with no effect on the value of a.
However, in reactive programming, the value of a is
automatically updated whenever the values of b and/or c change; without the program having to re-execute the sentence
a:=b+c to determine the presently assigned value of a.
Ok. When Im reproducing example like:
#RestController
public class PersonController {
private final PersonRepository repository;
public PersonController(PersonRepository repository) {
this.repository = repository;
}
#PostMapping("/person")
Mono<Void> create(#RequestBody Publisher<Person> personStream) {
return this.repository.save(personStream).then();
}
#GetMapping("/person")
Flux<Person> list() {
return this.repository.findAll();
}
#GetMapping("/person/{id}")
Mono<Person> findById(#PathVariable String id) {
return this.repository.findOne(id);
}
}
I'm Posting 2 persons. (on the chrome page 1)
Then getting list of all persons (on the chrome page 2)
Then adding one more person (on the chrome page 3)
Then I'm getting back to the page 2 (with no refreshing), I dont see updated list of persons, should I?
Also, how should work UPDATE/DELETE operations here?
I guess you're referring to the reactive programming wikipedia page and maybe reading too much into that example.
This example (and the famous spreadsheet one) usually point to UI rich applications that are listening to user events and publishing application events to update the UI.
Reactive programming and Reactive Streams by themselves aren't enough to set up such an infrastructure.
In your Controller, operations are performed and values are published in a reactive way: with backpressure support and access to a reactive API to compose them. Once the JSON response is rendered, the client doesn't receive new elements from the server.
You can create such a system though, by publishing events and having a persistent connection (SSE, for example) between server and browser.
Can anybody explain for what and when we are going to use EventBus methods? Also what kind the activities of the same.
EventBus in UI5 is a tool with which we can leverage publish-subscribe pattern in our app.
How do we get EventBus?
Currently, there are two APIs which return their own instance of EventBus:
Globally: sap.ui.getCore().getEventBus(); for
Standalone apps.
Component apps and their container app where developers have control over both.
Component-based: this.getOwnerComponent().getEventBus(); // this == controller. Especially for apps targeting Fiori Launchpad (FLP) where SAP explicitly warns not to get the EventBus from the core but from the component:
If you need an event bus, use the event bus of the component. By this, you avoid conflicting event names and make sure that your listeners are automatically removed when the component is unloaded. Do not use the global event bus.
Note
FLP destroys the component every time when the user navigates back Home.
Make sure to have the module sap/ui/core/EventBus required before calling getEventBus() to properly declare the dependency and to avoid possible sync XHR when requiring it.
sap.ui.define([ // or sap.ui.require
// ...,
"sap/ui/core/EventBus",
], function(/*...,*/ EventBus) { /*...*/ });
What is it for?
With EventBus, we can fire (via publish()), and listen (via subscribe()) to our own custom events freely:
Without having to use or extend any Control / ManagedObject / EventProvider classes,
Without knowing the existence of other involved listeners (if any),
Without accessing the object that fires the event (publisher). E.g.: No need to call thatManagedObj.attach*().
Publishers and subscribers stay ignorant to each other which makes loose coupling possible.
Analogous to the real world, EventBus is like a radio station. Once it starts to broadcast about all sorts of things on various channels, those, who are interested, can listen to a particular channel, get notified about a certain event, and do something productive with the given data. Here is an image that illustrates the basic behavior of an EventBus:
Sample code
Subscribe
{ // Controller A
onInit: function() {
const bus = this.getOwnerComponent().getEventBus();
bus.subscribe("channelABC", "awesomeEvent", this.shouldDoSomething, this);
},
shouldDoSomething: function(channelId, eventId, parametersMap) {
// Get notified when e.g. "doSomething" from Controller B is called.
},
}
Publish
{ // Controller B
doSomething: function(myData) {
const bus = this.getOwnerComponent().getEventBus();
bus.publish("channelABC", "awesomeEvent", { myData }); // broadcast the event
},
}
See API reference: sap/ui/core/EventBus
I'm starting a new Web API application, and I'm unsure how to handle transactions (and subsequent rollbacks in case of exceptions).
My overall goal is so have a single database connection per request, and have the entire thing wrapped in an explicit transaction.
I'll need an explicit transaction since I will be executing stored procedures aswell, and need to rollback any results from those if my application should throw any exceptions.
My plan was to re-use an approach I've used in MVC applications in the past which in rough terms was simply binding my database context to requestscope using ninject and then handling rollback/commit in the ondeactivation event.
Let's say I have a controller with two methods.
public class MyController : ApiController {
public MyController(IRepo repo) {
}
}
public string SimpleAddElement() {
_repo.Add(new MyModel());
}
public string ThisCouldBlowUp() {
// read from context
var foo = _repo.ReadFromDB();
// execute stored prodecure which changes some content
var res = _repo.StoredProcOperation();
// throw an exception due to bug/failsafe condition
if (res == 42)
throw Exception("Argh, an error occured");
}
}
My repo skeleton
public class Repo : IRepo {
public Repo(IMyDbContext context) {
}
}
From here, my plan was to simply bind the repositories using
kernel.Bind<IRepo>().To<Repo>();
and provide a single database context per request using
kernel.bind<IMyDbContext>().To<CreateCtx>()
.InRequestScope()
.OnDeactivate(FinalizeTransaction);
private IMyDbContext CreateCtx(IMyDbContext ctx) {
var ctx = new DbContext();
ctx.Database.BeginTransaction();
}
private void FinalizeTransaction(IMyDbContext ctx) {
if (true /* no errors logged on current HttpRequest.AllErrors */)
ctx.Commit();
else
ctx.Rollback();
}
Now, if I invoke SimpleAddElement from my browser FinalizeTransaction never gets invoked... So either I'm doing something wrong suddently, or missing something related to WebAPI pipeline
So how should I go about implementing a transactional "single DB session per request"-module?
What is best practise ?
If possible, I'd like the solution to support ASP vNext aswell
I suppose one potential solution could dropping the "ondeactivation" handler and implementing an HTTP module which will commit in Endrequest and rollback in Error... but there's just something about that I dont like.
You are missing an abstraction in your code. You execute business logic inside your controller, which is the wrong place. If you extract this logic to the business layer and hide it behind an abstraction, it will be trivial to wrap all business layer operations inside a transaction. Take a look at this article for some examples of this.
I'm upgrading a custom solution where I can dynamically register and unregister Web Api controllers to use the new attribute routing mechanism. However, it seems to recent update to RTM break my solution.
My solution exposes a couple of Web Api controllers for administration purposes. These are registered using the new HttpConfigurationExtensions.MapHttpAttributeRoutes method call.
The solution also allows Web Api controllers to be hosted in third-party assemblies and registered dynamically. At this stage, calling HttpConfigurationExtensions.MapHttAttributeRoutes a second time once the third-party controller is loaded would raise an exception. Therefore, my solution uses reflection to inspect the RoutePrefix and Route attributes and register corresponding routes on the HttpConfiguration object.
Unfortunately, calling the Web Api results in the following error:
"No HTTP resource was found that matches the request URI".
Here is a simple controller that I want to use:
[RoutePrefix("api/ze")]
public sealed class ZeController : ApiController
{
[HttpGet]
[Route("one")]
public string GetOne()
{
return "One";
}
[HttpGet]
[Route("two")]
public string GetTwo()
{
return "Two";
}
[HttpPost]
[Route("one")]
public string SetOne(string value)
{
return String.Empty;
}
}
Here is the first solution I tried:
configuration.Routes.MapHttpRoute("ZeApi", "api/ze/{action}");
Here is the second solution I tried:
var type = typeof(ZeController);
var routeMembers = type.GetMethods().Where(m => m.IsPublic);
foreach (MethodInfo method in routeMembers)
{
var routeAttribute = method.GetCustomAttributes(false).OfType<RouteAttribute>().FirstOrDefault();
if (routeAttribute != null)
{
string controllerName = type.Name.Substring(0, type.Name.LastIndexOf("Controller"));
string routeTemplate = string.Join("/", "api/Ze", routeAttribute.Template);
configuration.Routes.MapHttpRoute(method.Name, routeTemplate);
}
}
I also have tried a third solution, whereby I create custom classes that implement IHttpRoute and trying to register them with the configuration to no avail.
Is it possible to use legacy-style route mapping based upon the information contained in the new routing attributes ?
Update
I have installed my controller in a Web Application in order to troubleshoot the routing selection process with the Web Api Route Debugger. Here is the result of the screenshot:
As you can see, the correct action seems to be selected, but I still get a 404 error.
Update2
After further analysis, and per Kiran Challa's comment below, it seems that the design of Web Api prevents mixing attribute routing and conventional routing, and that what I want to do is not possible using this approach.
I have created a custom attribute [RouteEx] that serves the same purpose of the Web Api [Route] attribute, and now my code works perfectly.
I guess, since this is not possible using the conventional attribute routing, none of the answers on this question could legitimately be consisered valid. So I'm not nominating an answer just yet.
You shouldn't be required to use reflection and inspect the attribute-routing based attributes yourself. Attribute routing uses existing Web API features to get list of controllers to scan through.
Question: Before the switch to attribute routing, how were you loading these assemblies having the
controllers?
If you were doing this by IAssembliesResolver service, then this solution should work even with attribute routing and you should not be needing to do anything extra.
Regarding your Update: are you calling MapHttpAttributeRoutes?
I am trying to implement a proof of concept service bus using MassTransit. I have three applications which need to communicate changes of a common entity type between each other. So when the user updates the entity in one application, the other two are notified.
Each application is configured as follows with their own queue:
bus = ServiceBusFactory.New(sbc =>
{
sbc.UseMsmq();
sbc.VerifyMsmqConfiguration();
sbc.ReceiveFrom("msmq://localhost/app1_queue");
sbc.UseSubscriptionService("msmq://localhost/subscription");
sbc.UseControlBus();
sbc.Subscribe(subs =>
{
subs.Handler<IMessage1>(IMessage1_Received);
});
});
There is also a subscription service application configured as follows:
subscriptionBus = ServiceBusFactory.New(sbc =>
{
sbc.UseMsmq();
sbc.VerifyMsmqConfiguration();
sbc.ReceiveFrom("msmq://localhost/subscription");
});
var subscriptionSagas = new InMemorySagaRepository<SubscriptionSaga>();
var subscriptionClientSagas = new InMemorySagaRepository<SubscriptionClientSaga>();
subscriptionService = new SubscriptionService(subscriptionBus, subscriptionSagas, subscriptionClientSagas);
subscriptionService.Start();
The problem is that when one of the applications publishes a message, all three applications receive it (including the original sender).
Is there any way to avoid this (without resorting to adding the application name to the message)?
Thanks,
G
So MassTransit is a pub/sub system. If you publish a message, everyone registered to receive it will. If you need only some endpoints to receive it, then you really need to directly send. It's just how this works.
You could include the source in your message and discard messages that aren't of interest to you. If you implement the Consumes.Accept interface, I think the Accept method would allow you to do so easily without mixing that into the normal consumption code.