Can I add an assembly to the container after composing? I want to implement on-demand assembly loading. I don't want to use DirectoryCatalog because it takes too long on startup. (there are a lot of assemblies). I want to load specific assembly after an user interaction.
Thank you.
can you post your code what action cause a long load time. but if mef should create your object and this creation takes a lot of time you have no chance to reduce this time? or did i get something wrong?
public void Startup
{
//if this takes a long time,
//it would be take a long time even not related assemblies are not in your container
var myclass = cc.GetExport<MyType>();//or cc.ComposeParts(this);
}
Related
I use Autofac extensively. Recently I've gotten interested in tweaking the lifetime scopes when registering items for XUnit testing. Basically I want to register a number of standard components I use as "instance per test" rather than what I normally do for runtime (I've found a useful library on github that defines an instance-per-test lifetime).
One way to do this is to define two separate container builds, one for runtime and one for xunit testing. That would work but it gets increasingly expensive to maintain.
What I'd like to do (I think) is modify the registration pipeline dynamically depending upon the context -- runtime or xunit test -- in which it is being built. In pseudocode:
builder.RegisterType<SomeType>().AsImplementedInterfaces().SingleInstance();
...
void TweakPipeline(...)
{
if( Testing )
{
TypeBeingRegistered.InstancePerTest();
}
else
{
TypeBeingRegistered.SingleInstance();
}
}
Is this something Autofac middleware can do? If not is there another capability in the Autofac API which could address it? As always, links to examples would be appreciated.
This is an interesting question. I like that you started thinking about some of the new features in Autofac, very few do. So, kudos for the good question.
If you think about the middleware, yes, you can probably use it to muck with lifetime scope, but we didn't really make "change the lifetime scope on the fly" something easy to do and... I'll be honest, I'm not sure how you'd do it.
However, I think there are a couple of different options you have to make life easier. In the order in which I'd do them if it was me...
Option 1: Container Per Test
This is actually what I do for my tests. I don't share a container across multiple tests, I actually make building the container part of the test setup. For Xunit, that means I put it in the constructor of the test class.
Why? A couple reasons:
State is a problem. I don't want test ordering or state on singletons in the container to make my tests fragile.
I want to test what I deploy. I don't want something to test out OK only to find that it worked because of something I set up in the container special for testing. Obvious exceptions for mocks and things to make the tests actually unit tests.
If the problem is that the container takes too long to set up and is slowing the tests down, I'd probably troubleshoot that. I usually find the cause of this to be either that I'm assembly scanning and registering way, way too much (oops, forgot the Where statement to filter things down) or I've started trying to "multi-purpose" the container to start orchestrating my app startup logic by registering code to auto-execute on container build (which is easy to do... but don't forget the container isn't your app startup logic, so maybe separate that out).
Container per test really is the easiest, most isolated way to go and requires no special effort.
Option 2: Modules
Modules are a nice way to encapsulate sets of registrations and can be a good way to take parameters like this. In this case, I might do something like this for the module:
public class MyModule : Module
{
public bool Testing { get; set; }
protected override void Load(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
var toUpdate = new List<IRegistrationBuilder<object, ConcreteReflectionActivatorData, SingleRegistrationStyle>>();
toUpdate.Add(builder.RegisterType<SomeType>());
toUpdate.Add(builder.RegisterType<OtherType>());
foreach(var reg in toUpdate)
{
if(this.Testing)
{
reg.InstancePerTest();
}
else
{
reg.SingleInstance();
}
}
}
}
Then you could register it:
var module = new MyModule { Testing = true };
builder.RegisterModule(module);
That makes the list of registrations easier to tweak (foreach loop) and also keeps the "things that need changing based on testing" isolated to a module.
Granted, it could get a little complex in there if you have lambdas and all sorts of other registrations in there, but that's the gist.
Option 3: Builder Properties
The ContainerBuilder has a set of properties you can use while building stuff to help avoid having to deal with environment variables but also cart around arbitrary info you can use while setting up the container. You could write an extension method like this:
public static IRegistrationBuilder<TLimit, TActivatorData, TRegistrationStyle>
EnableTesting<TLimit, TActivatorData, TRegistrationStyle>(
this IRegistrationBuilder<TLimit, TActivatorData, TRegistrationStyle> registration,
ContainerBuilder builder)
{
if(builder.Properties.TryGetValue("testing", out var testing) && Convert.ToBoolean(testing))
{
registration.InstancePerTest();
}
return registration;
}
Then when you register things that need to be tweaked, you could do it like this:
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
// Set this in your tests, not in production
// builder.Properties["testing"] = true;
builder.RegisterType<Handler>()
.SingleInstance()
.EnableTesting(builder);
var container = builder.Build();
You might be able to clean that up a bit, but again, that's the general idea.
You might ask why use the builder as the mechanism to transport properties if you have to pass it in anyway.
Fluent syntax: Due to the way registrations work, they're all extension methods on the registration, not on the builder. The registration is a self-contained thing that doesn't have a reference to the builder (you can create a registration object entirely without a builder).
Internal callbacks: The internals on how registration works basically boil down to having a list of Action executed where the registrations have all the variables set up in a closure. It's not a function where we can pass stuff in during build; it's self-contained. (That might be interesting to change, now I think of it, but that's another discussion!)
You can isolate it: You could put this into a module or anywhere else and you won't be adding any new dependencies or logic. The thing carting around the variable will be the builder itself, which is always present.
Like I said, you could potentially make this better based on your own needs.
Recommendation: Container Per Test
I'll wrap up by just again recommending container per test. It's so simple, it requires no extra work, there are no surprises, and it "just works."
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.
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:)
if I have the following class, will I run into a problem if 100 people are requesting the page at the same time? If there is only one copy of UpdateUser, will all the requests have to queue up and wait for their turns? Thank you.
public static UserManager
{
public static void UpdateUser(int UserID)
{
// this process takes up 2 seconds
UserDataAccessor DA = new UserDataAccessor();
DA.Update();
}
}
It depends on what all your other code is doing, but that particular code will not cause any problems.
In general, if you are writing a web application using Java servlets, you need to design your classes to allow for multiple threads. The application server you deploy your code into will call this one class many times, possibly simultaneously if there are many users at once. This is quite common.
The code you posted here looks fine. There are field variables being shared between threads. Each thread of execution will invoke your method and create a DA variable that is private to the thread.
I am working in a project that has two main parts: a class library assembly and the main application. Both are using Castle Windsor for IoC and both manually setup their list of of components in code (to aid refactoring and prevent the need for a config file). Currently the main application has code like this:
public static void Main()
{
// Perform library IoC setup
LibraryComponent.Init();
// Perform application IoC setup
IoC.Register<IXyz, Abc>("abc");
// etc, etc, ...
// Start the application code ...
}
However the call to initialise the library doesn't seem like a good solution. What is the best way to setup a class library that uses an IoC container to decouple its internal components?
Edit:
Lusid proposed using a static method on each public component in the library that would in turn make the call to initialise. One possible way to make this a bit nicer would be to use something like PostSharp to do this in an aspect-oriented way. However I was hoping for something a bit more elegant ;-)
Lusid also proposed using the AppDomain.AssemblyLoad event to perform custom steps at load time, however I am really after a way to avoid the client assembly from requiring any setup code.
Thanks!
I'm not sure if I'm understanding exactly the problem you are trying to solve, but my first guess is that you are looking for a way to decouple the need to call the Init method from your main application.
One method I've used in the past is a static constructor on a static class in the class library:
static public class LibraryComponent {
static LibraryComponent() {
Init();
}
}
If you have multiple class libraries, and would like a quick and dirty way of evaluating all of them as they are loaded, here's a (kinda hairy) way:
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.AssemblyLoad += new AssemblyLoadEventHandler(CurrentDomain_AssemblyLoad);
}
static void CurrentDomain_AssemblyLoad(object sender, AssemblyLoadEventArgs args)
{
IEnumerable<Type> types = args.LoadedAssembly.GetTypes()
.Where(t => typeof(IMyModuleInterface).IsAssignableFrom(t));
foreach (Type t in types)
{
doSomethingWithType(t);
}
}
The Where clause could be anything you want, of course. The code above would find any class deriving from IMyModuleInterface in each assembly that gets loaded into the current AppDomain, and then I can do something with it, whether it be registering dependencies, maintaining an internal list, whatever.
Might not be exactly what you are looking for, but hopefully it helps in some way.
You could have a registration module. Basically LibraryComponent.Init() function takes an IRegistrar to wire everything up.
The IRegistrar could basically have a function Register(Type interface, Type implementation). The implimentor would map that function back to their IOC container.
The downside is that you can't rely on anything specific to the container your using.
Castle Windsor actually has a concept called facilities that are basically just ways of wrapping standardised pieces of configuration. In this model, you would simply add the two facilities to the container and they would do the work.
Of course, this wouldn't really be better than calling a library routine to do the work unless you configured the facilities in a configuration file (consider binsor). If you are really allergic to configuration files, your current solution is probably the best.