I'm using c# and the unity IOC container.
I have come up with a situation where I need to register multiple objects with the same interface. In this situation how do I register/resolve these required objects from unity?
For example I need 2 different versions of the logger in the same viewmodel
Class DatabaseLogger : Ilogger {...}
Class FileLogger : Ilogger {...}
How can I register and resolve these both in my viewmodel?
I could do the following :
Class DatabaseLogger : IDatabaseLogger {...}
Class FileLogger : IFileLogger {...}
Is this the best way?
log4net or the Enterprise Library Logging Application Block have their own means to write output to multiple targets (file, eventlog, database, console, ...).
I would expect this functionality from any other mature logging library out there as well. Its just a matter of the configuration of these frameworks where your messages end up.
Thus you would not need to create your own logger classes. And creating interfaces with just a single implementation (IFileLogger, IDatabaseLogger, IEventLogLogger, IConsoleLogger, ...) makes the interface pretty useless as a means of abstraction.
If you don't use such a library you might consider switching to a proven solution instead.
Related
I'd like to know what the best practices are for Eclipse 4 dependency injection.
After reading about this subject on the internet, I came up with the following strategy.
requirements
Share the data model of the application (e.g. company, employee, customer, ...) so that framework objects (view parts, handlers, listeners, ...) can access it with as little coupling as possible.
proposed strategy
I've used the lifeCycleURI plugin property to register a handler which is triggered at application startup. Such handler creates an "empty" top-level data model container object and place it into the EclipseContext. It is also discarded when application stops.
All Eclipse framework classes (view parts, handlers) use the classic DI to get such data model object injected.
Button listeners created with the class constructor can't have the data model object injected in them. So I thought they could be created with ContextInjectionFactory.make() to have injection performed. This would couple the class which creates the listener with CIF, but the great advantage is that injection works out of the box.
This is the best solution I've found yet to leverage E4 DI with as little coupling as possible. The weak spot is in my opinion this coupling with CIF. My question would be whether any strategy exist to remove even this coupling, or alternate solutions for the same requirements.
You can create a service class in your project, let's say ModelService.
Add #creatable and #singleton annotations to that class :
#creatable
#singleton
class ModelService{
}
And let DI do its job using following syntax in your parts/handlers/etc ..
#Inject ModelService modelService;
Then you can implement methods in your service like 'createBaseModel()', updateModel() and so on.
This creates a low coupling solution : you can also implement ModelService in a separate plugin and define it as a OSGi service.
for that solution, you can read this Lars Vogel article.
Recently I was looking at some source code provided by community leaders in their open source implementations. One these projects made use of IOC. Here is sample hypothetical code:
public class Class1
{
private ISomeInterface _someObject;
public Class1(ISomeInterface someObject)
{
_someObject = someObject;
}
// some more code and then
var someOtherObject = new SomeOtherObject();
}
My question is not about what the IOCs are for and how to use them in technical terms but rather what are the guidelines regarding object creation. All that effort and then this line using "new" operator. I don't quite understand. Which object should be created by IOC and for which ones it is permissible to be created via the new operator?
As a general rule of thumb, if something is providing a service which may want to be replaced either for testing or to use a different implementation (e.g. different authentication services) then inject the dependency. If it's something like a collection, or a simple data object which isn't providing behaviour which you'd ever want to vary, then it's fine to instantiate it within the class.
Usually you use IoC because:
A dependency that can change in the future
To code against interfaces, not concrete types
To enable mocking these dependencies in Unit Testing scenarios
You could avoid using IoC in the case where you don't control the dependency, for example an StringBuilder is always going to be an StringBuilder and have a defined behavior, and you usually don't really need to mock that; while you might want to mock an HttpRequestBase, because it's an external dependency on having an internet connection, for example, which is a problem during unit tests (longer execution times, and it's something out of your control).
The same happens for database access repositories and so on.
I have inherited a project that has an awkwardly big interface declared (lets call it IDataProvider). There are methods for all aspects of the application bunched up inside the file. Not that it's a huge problem but i'd rather have them split into smaller files with descriptive name. To refactor the interface and break it up in multiple interfaces (let's say IVehicleProvider, IDriverProvider etc...) will require massive code refactoring, because there are a lot of classes that implement the interface. I'm thinking of two other ways of sorting things out: 1) Create multiple files for each individual aspect of the application and make the interface partial or 2) Create multiple interfaces like IVehicleProvider, IDriverProvider and have IDataProvider interface inhertit from them.
Which of the above would you rather do and why? Or if you can think of better way, please tell.
Thanks
This book suggests that interfaces belong, not to the provider, but rather to the client of the interface. That is, that you should define them based on their users rather than the classes that implement them. Applied to your situation, users of IDataProvider each use (probably) only a small subset of the functionality of that big interface. Pick one of those clients. Extract the subset of functionality that it uses into a new interface, and remove that functionality from IDataProvider (but if you want to let IDataProvider extend your new interface to preserve existing behavior, feel free). Repeat until done - and then get rid of IDataProvider.
This is difficult to answer without any tags or information telling us the technology or technologies in which you are working.
Assuming .NET, the initial refactoring should be very minimal.
The classes that implement the original interface already implement it in its entirety.
Once you create the smaller interfaces, you just change:
public class SomeProvider : IAmAHugeInterface { … }
with:
public class SomeProvider : IProvideA, IProvideB, IProvideC, IProvideD { … }
…and your code runs exactly the way it did before, as long as you haven't added or removed any members from what was there to begin with.
From there, you can whittle down the classes on an as-needed or as-encountered basis and remove the extra methods and interfaces from the declaration.
Is it correct that most if not all of the classes which implement this single big interface have lots of methods which either don't do anything or throw exceptions?
If that isn't the case, and you have great big classes with lots of different concerns bundled into it then you will be in for a painful refactoring, but I think handling this refactoring now is the best approach - the alternatives you suggest simply push you into different bad situations, deferring the pain for little gain.
One thing to can do is apply multiple interfaces to a single class (in most languages) so you can just create your new interfaces and replace the single big interface with the multiple smaller ones:
public class BigNastyClass : IBigNastyInterface
{
}
Goes to:
public class BigNastyClass : ISmallerInferface1, ISmallerInterface2 ...
{
}
If you don't have huge classes which implement the entire interface, I would tackle the problem on a class by class basis. For each class which implements this big interface introduce a new specific interface for just that class.
This way you only need to refactor your code base one class at a time.
DriverProvider for example will go from:
public class DriverProvider : IBigNastyInterface
{
}
To:
public class DriverProvider : IDriverProvider
{
}
Now you simply remove all the unused methods that weren't doing anything beyond simply satisfying the big interface, and fix up any methods where DriverProvider's need to be passed in.
I would do the latter. Make the individual, smaller interfaces, and then make the 'big' interface an aggregation of them.
After that, you can refactor the big interface away in the consumers of it as applicable.
I am new to OSGi and came across several examples about OSGi services.
For example:
import org.osgi.framework.*;
import org.osgi.service.log.*;
public class MyActivator implements BundleActivator {
public void start(BundleContext context) throws Exception {
ServiceReference logRef =
context.getServiceReference(LogService.class.getName());
}
}
My question is, why do you use
getServiceReference(LogService.class.getName())
instead of
getServiceReference("LogService")
If you use LogService.class.getName() you have to import the Interface. This also means that you have to import the package org.osgi.services.log in your MANIFEST.MF.
Isn't that completely counterproductive if you want to reduce dependencies to push loose coupling? As far as I know one advantage of services is that the service consumer doesn't have to know the service publisher. But if you have to import one specific Interface you clearly have to know who's providing it. By only using a string like "LogService" you would not have to know that the Interface is provided by org.osgi.services.log.LogService.
What am I missing here?
Looks like you've confused implementation and interface
Using the actual interface for the name (and importing the interface , which you'll end up doing anyway) reenforces the interface contract that services are designed around. You don't care about the implemenation of a LogService but you do care about the interface. Every LogService will need to implement the same interface, hence your use of the interface to get the service. For all you know the LogService is really a wrapper around SLF4J provided by some other bundle. All you see is the interface. That's the loose coupling you're looking for. You don't have to ship the interface with every implementation. Leave the interface it's own bundle and have multiple implementations of that interface.
Side note: ServiceTracker is usually easier to use, give it a try!
Added benefits: Using the interface get the class name avoids spelling mistakes, excessive string literals, and makes refactoring much easier.
After you've gotten the ServiceReference, your next couple lines will likely involve this:
Object logSvc = content.getService(logRef)
// What can you do with logSvc now?!? It's an object, mostly useless
// Cast to the interface ... YES! Now you need to import it!
LogSerivce logger = (LogService)logSvc;
logger.log(LogService.LOG_INFO, "Interfaces are a contract between implementation and consumer/user");
If you use the LogService, you're coupled to it anyway. If you write middleware you likely get the name parameterized through some XML file or via an API. And yes, "LogService" will fail terribly, you need to use the fully qualified name: "org.osgi.service.log.LogService". Main reason to use the LogService.class.getName() pattern is to get correct renaming when you refactor your code and minimize spelling errors. The next OSGi API will very likely have:
ServiceReference<S> getServiceReference(Class<S> type)
calls to increase type safety.
Anyway, I would never use these low level API unless you develop middleware. If you actually depend on a concrete class DS is infinitely simpler, and even more when you use it with the bnd annotations (http://enroute.osgi.org/doc/217-ds.html).
#Component
class Xyz implements SomeService {
LogService log;
#Reference
void setLog( LogService log) { this.log = log; }
public void foo() { ... someservice ... }
}
If you develop middleware you get the service classes usually without knowing the actual class, via a string or class object. The OSGi API based on strings is used in those cases because it allows us to be more lazy by not creating a class loader until the last moment in time. I think the biggest mistake we made in OSGi 12 years ago is not to include the DS concepts in the core ... :-(
You cannot use value "LogService"
as a class name to get ServiceReference, because you have to use fully qualified class name
"org.osgi.services.log.LogService".
If you import package this way:
org.osgi.services.log;resolution:=optional
and you use ServiceTracker to track services in BundleActivator.start() method I suggest to use "org.osgi.services.log.LogService" instead of LogService.class.getName() on ServiceTracker initializazion. In this case you'll not get NoClassDefFoundError/ClassNotFountException on bundle start.
As basszero mentioned you should consider to use ServiceTracker. It is fairly easy to use and also supports a much better programming pattern. You must never assume that a ServiceReference you got sometime in the past is still valid. The service the ServiceReference points to might have gone away. The ServiceTracker will automatically notify you when a service is registered or unregistered.
Suppose that the ApplicationSettings class is a general repository of settings that apply to my application such as TimeoutPeriod, DefaultUnitOfMeasure, HistoryWindowSize, etc... And let's say MyClass makes use of one of those settings - DefaultUnitOfMeasure.
My reading of proper use of Inversion of Control Containers - and please correct me if I'm wrong on this - is that you define the dependencies of a class in its constructor:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(IDataSource ds, UnitOfMeasure default_uom) {...}
}
and then call instantiate your class with something like
var mc = IoC.Container.Resolve<MyClass>();
Where IDataSource has been assigned a concrete implementation and default_uom has been wired up to instantiate from the ApplicationSettings.DefaultUnitOfMeasure property. I've got to wonder however, if all these hoops are really that necessary to jump through. What trouble am I setting myself up for should I do
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(IDataSource ds) {
UnitOfMeasure duom = IoC.Container.Resolve<UnitOfMeasure>("default_uom");
}
}
Yes, many of my classes end up with a dependency on IoC.Container but that is a dependency that most of my classes will have anyways. It seems like I maybe should make full use of it as long as the classes are coupled. Please Agile gurus, tell me where I'm wrong.
IoC.Container.Resolve("default_uom");
I see this as a classic anti-pattern, where you are using the IoC container as a service locater - the key issues that result are:
Your application no longer fails-fast if your container is misconfigured (you'll only know about it the first time it tries to resolve that particular service in code, which might not occur except for a specific set of logic/circumstances).
Harder to test - not impossible of course, but you either have to create a real (and semi-configured) instance of the windsor container for your tests or inject the singleton with a mock of IWindsorContainer - this adds a lot of friction to testing, compared to just being able to pass the mock/stub services directly into your class under test via constructors/properties.
Harder to maintain this kind of application (configuration isn't centralized in one location)
Violates a number of other software development principles (DRY, SOC etc.)
The concerning part of your original statement is the implication that most of your classes will have a dependency on your IoC singleton - if they're getting all the services injected in via constructors/dependencies then having some tight coupling to IoC should be the exception to the rule - In general the only time I take a dependency on the container is when I'm doing something tricky i.e. trying to avoid a circular dependency problems, or wish to create components at run-time for some reason, and even then I can often avoid taking a dependency on anything more then a generic IServiceProvider interface, allowing me to swap in a home-bake IoC or service locater implementation if I need to reuse the components in an environment outside of the original project.
I usually don't have many classes depending on my IoC container. I usually try to wrap the IoC stuff in a facade object that I inject into other classes, usually most of my IoC injection is done only in the higher layers of my application though.
If you do things your way you can't test MyClass without creating a IoC configuration for your tests. This will make your tests harder to maintain.
Another problem is that you're going to have powerusers of your software who want to change the configuration editing your IoC config files. This is something I'd want to avoid. You could split up your IoC config into a normal config file and the IoC specific stuff. But then you could just as well use the normal .Net config functionality to read the configuration.
Yes, many of my classes end up with a dependency on IoC.Container but that is a dependency that most of my classes will have anyways.
I think this is the crux of the issue. If in fact most of your classes are coupled to the IoC container itself chances are you need to rethink your design.
Generally speaking your app should only refer to the container class directly once during the bootstrapping. After you have that first hook into the container the rest of the object graph should be entirely managed by the container and all of those objects should be oblivious to the fact that they were created by an IoC container.
To comment on your specific example:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(IDataSource ds) {
UnitOfMeasure duom = IoC.Container.Resolve<UnitOfMeasure>("default_uom");
}
}
This makes it harder to re-use your class. More specifically it makes it harder to instantiate your class outside of the narrow usage pattern you are confining it to. One of the most common places this will manifest itself is when trying to test your class. It's much easier to test that class if the UnitOfMeasure can be passed to the constructor directly.
Also, your choice of name for the UOM instance ("default_uom") implies that the value could be overridden, depending on the usage of the class. In that case, you would not want to "hard-code" the value in the constructor like that.
Using the constructor injection pattern does not make your class dependent on the IoC, just the opposite it gives clients the option to use the IoC or not.