I'm using Autofac 2.4.4.705.
The output of the following code is: 1 (which means the resolved collection contains one item. I thought it should be empty)
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var builder = new Autofac.ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterModule(new AutofacModule());
using (var container = builder.Build())
{
var x = container.Resolve<ObservableCollection<A>>();
Console.WriteLine(x.Count);
}
}
}
class A
{
}
class AutofacModule : Autofac.Module
{
protected override void Load(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
builder.RegisterGeneric(typeof(ObservableCollection<>))
.As(typeof(ObservableCollection<>));
}
}
It seems the issue is cause by:
builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
If I remove it from AutofacModule, then the output is 0.
Any ideas?
Thanks
Update:
Ah, I think I understand now. Autofac thought I want to resolve all types of A, and there is one type of A in this example (A itself), so the ObservableCollection contains one item. I previously thought only IEnumerable<> has this behavior. But it seems subtypes of IEnumerable<> also have this behavior.
But sometimes what I really want is to inject an collection, for example, sometime I need to inject DispacherNotifiedObservableCollection into my ViewModels. Any workarounds?
Update 2:
Based on the answer of Nicholas Blumhardt, I changed my code to:
builder.RegisterGeneric(typeof(ExtendedObservableCollection<>))
.As(typeof(IObservableCollection<>))
.UsingConstructor();
public interface IObservableCollection<T> :
IList<T>, ICollection<T>, IEnumerable<T>, INotifyCollectionChanged, INotifyPropertyChanged
{
void AddRange(IEnumerable<T> list);
void Sort<TKey>(Func<T, TKey> keySelector, System.ComponentModel.ListSortDirection direction);
void Sort<TKey>(Func<T, TKey> keySelector, IComparer<TKey> comparer);
}
Now everything works fine. Thanks!
The behavior you're seeing is a result of the ObservableCollection type having a constructor that accepts IEnumerable.
You can change this to use the default constructor using the UsingConstructor() option.
ObservableCollection itself might not be a very good contract to depend on though- it is a bit unclear what the semantics should generally be. Wrapping it in a specialized component with it's own interface is the better option.
Related
I want to trigger my aspect for classes annotated with repositories and belonging to my packages, for example this one:
//com.foo.myapp.bar.repositories.dao
#Repository
public class MyRepo extends JpaRepository<MyEntity, String>{
My classes are jpa repositories created like this:
#EnableTransactionManagement
#EnableJpaRepositories(
entityManagerFactoryRef = "firstManagerFactory",
transactionManagerRef = "firstTransactionManager",
basePackages = {"com.foo.myapp.bar.repositories.first.dao"}
)
public class DbConfig {
My aspect is the following but only activates if I leave the repository() pointcut, but if I also specify application packages it doesn't work:
#Pointcut("within(#org.springframework.stereotype.Repository *)")
private void repositoryInvocation() {
// Method is empty as this is just a Pointcut, the implementations are in the advices.
}
#Pointcut("within(com.foo.myapp..*)")
public void applicationPackage() {
// Method is empty as this is just a Pointcut, the implementations are in the advices.
}
#Around("repositoryInvocation() && applicationPackage()") //this && doesn't work, I have to remove the second one
public Object aspectTriggers(ProceedingJoinPoint joinPoint) throws Throwable {
Object result = joinPoint.proceed();
return result;
}
What am I missing?
edit:
I think I got it: problem is that the implementation of the repository does not belong to my application package, but to spring's SimpleJPARepository. It's like the aspect is only working on the implementation, totally ignoring the interface.
I think you do not want
#Pointcut("within(#org.springframework.stereotype.Repository *)")
but rather
#Pointcut("#within(org.springframework.stereotype.Repository)")
Be careful with your pointcut syntax, the two are not the same:
within() describes a package or class name you want to scope/limit your pointcut to.
#within() looks for a type (class) with the given annotation.
You want the latter, not the former.
Edit: On a second thought, actually I see no obvious reason why the first version should not work, even though it is a bit more complicated than the second.
But you said that you had problems with the second pointcut anyway. Are you 100% sure that your repository class really is in a com.foo.myapp (sub) package? No typo in either the package name or the pointcut? Actually, without trying and only looking at it, it should work otherwise.
I'm used to working the database connections where you connect/open/close as fast as possible in each method. I'm now working with the Entity Framework and so my methods all do this type of thing:
using (var context = new FooEntities()) {
// linq to sql query here
}
I've been told that with Entity Framework I can actually have that context variable be a class level variable and not have to instantiate it in each method. Is that really the case, or should I continue this pattern in each method?
I'm using version 5.0.0 of the framework if that makes a difference.
It depends on how you are expecting it to act. The only reason you'd want it to stick around is if you wanted to use the caching feature of DbContext across multiple method calls. But since its pulling connections from the Pool anyway, disposing of a DbContext shouldn't really impact performance when creating a new one.
For me personally, I create the context as close as possible and kill it as soon as possible. Thus, the Get calls should use AsNoTracking() to speed up the calls a lot if you don't care about trying to update them later. You could also create a DbContextFactory so each class could control that interaction as it sees fit. (i.e. Method A always creates a new one, but Methods B and C could share if either one called first). Though, that could cause its own issues down the road, but then you can opt into those conditions.
You can have Context as a property of a class, but you have to consider how to control the disposing of the Context. For example:
public class UnitOfWork:IDisposable
{
public DbContext Context { get; set; }
public UnitOfWork()
{
Context = null; //initialize context here
}
public void DoWorkWithContext1()
{
//anything you need
}
public void DoWorkWithContext2()
{
//anything you need
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (Context != null)
Context.Dispose();
}
}
Then you'll use the class in this way:
using (var unit= new UnitOfWork())
{
unit.DoWorkWithContext1();
unit.DoWorkWithContext2();
}
I want to achieve two goals:
I want my model to be loaded every time from the DB when it's in a life-cycle (for every request there will be just one request to the DB)
I want my model to be attached dynamically to the page and that wicket will do all this oreable binding for me
In order to achieve these two goals I came to a conclusion that I need to use both CompoundPropertyModel and LoadableDetachableModel.
Does anyone know if this is a good approach?
Should I do new CompoundPropertyModel(myLoadableDetachableModel)?
Yes, you are right, it is possible to use
new CompoundPropertyModel<T>(new LoadableDetachableModel<T> { ... })
or use static creation (it does the same):
CompoundPropertyModel.of(new LoadableDetachableModel<T> { ... })
that has both features of compound model and lazy detachable model. Also detaching works correctly, when it CompoudPropertyModel is detached it also proxies detaching to inner model that is used as the model object in this case.
I use it in many cases and it works fine.
EXPLANATION:
See how looks CompoundPropertyModel class (I'm speaking about Wicket 1.6 right now):
public class CompoundPropertyModel<T> extends ChainingModel<T>
This mean, CompoundPropertyModel adds the property expression behavior to the ChainingModel.
ChainingModel has the following field 'target' and the constructor to set it.
private Object target;
public ChainingModel(final Object modelObject)
{
...
target = modelObject;
}
This take the 'target' reference to tho object or model.
When you call getObject() it checks the target and proxies the functionality if the target is a subclass of IModel:
public T getObject()
{
if (target instanceof IModel)
{
return ((IModel<T>)target).getObject();
}
return (T)target;
}
The similar functionality is implemented for setObject(T), that also sets the target or proxies it if the target is a subclass of IModel
public void setObject(T object)
{
if (target instanceof IModel)
{
((IModel<T>)target).setObject(object);
}
else
{
target = object;
}
}
The same way is used to detach object, however it check if the target (model object) is detachable, in other words if the target is a subclass if IDetachable, that any of IModel really is.
public void detach()
{
// Detach nested object if it's a detachable
if (target instanceof IDetachable)
{
((IDetachable)target).detach();
}
}
I'm trying to build a command processor that can take any command that implements a marker interface (or maybe descends from a base class). The processor will handle the command that it is asked to process. However I'm struggling with resolving the true generic type as Resolve(Type) returns an object.
I'm not sure is how to cast this if at all possible?
public void Process(ICommand command)
{
var c = command.GetType();
var t = typeof(ICommandHandler<>).MakeGenericType(new[] { c });
var o = container.Resolve(t);
//((ICommandHandler)o).Handle(command); *** This doesn't work
}
The calling code would be something like this -
Dispatcher.Process(new SomeCommand(Guid.NewGuid(),"Param1",12345));
If you absolutely have to call the ICommandHandler<T>.Handle method and you have no other control over the design of the system, then reflection may be your only choice. There's no great way to deal with the switch from generic to non-generic.
Otherwise, you may have a couple of options.
First, if your Dispatcher.Process can be made generic, you can save all the casting.
public static class Dispatcher
{
public static void Process<T>(T command) where T : ICommand
{
var handler = container.Resolve<ICommandHandler<T>>();
handler.Handle(command);
}
}
This is a pretty common solution to a problem like this that I've seen out in the wild.
If you can't do that, then you may be able to make your ICommandHandler<T> interface implement a non-generic ICommandHandler base interface.
public interface ICommandHandler
{
void Handle(ICommand command);
}
public interface ICommandHandler<T> : ICommandHandler
{
void Handle(T command);
}
In this latter case you'd have to switch your strongly-typed command handler implementations to call the same internal logic for generic or basic handling or you'll get different handling based on the call, which would be bad:
public class SomeCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<SomeCommand>
{
public void Handle(ICommand command)
{
var castCommand = command as SomeCommand;
if(castCommand == null)
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Wrong command type.");
}
// Hand off to the strongly-typed version.
this.Handle(castCommand);
}
public void Handle(SomeCommand command)
{
// Here's the actual handling logic.
}
}
Then when you resolve the strongly-typed ICommandHandler<T> your cast down to ICommandHandler (as shown in your question's sample code) will work.
This is also a pretty common solution, but I've seen it more in systems that existed before generics were available where an updated API was being added.
However, in all cases here, the problem really isn't that Autofac is returning an object; it's a class/type design problem that affects any generic-to-non-generic conversion scenario.
Using Reflection - but is this the best way to approach this?
public void Process(Command command)
{
var c = command.GetType();
var ot = typeof(ICommandHandler<>);
var type = ot.MakeGenericType(new[] { c });
var mi = type.GetMethod("Handle");
var o = container.Resolve(type);
mi.Invoke(o, new object[] { command });
}
I have a singleton IObservable that returns the results of a Linq query. I have another class that listens to the IObservable to structure a message. That class is Exported through MEF, and I can import it and get asynchronous results from the Linq query.
My problem is that after initial composition takes place, I don't get any renotification on changes when the data supplied to the Linq query changes. I implemented INotifyPropertyChanged on the singleton, thinking it word make the exported class requery for a new IObservable, but this doesn't happen.
Maybe I'm not understanding something about the lifetime of MEF containers, or about property notification. I'd appreciate any help.
Below are the singleton and the exported class. I've left out some pieces of code that can be inferred, like the PropertyChanged event handlers and such. Suffice to say, that does work when the underlying Session data changes. The singleton raises a change event for UsersInCurrentSystem, but there is never any request for a new IObservable from the UsersInCurrentSystem property.
public class SingletonObserver: INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private static readonly SingletonObserver _instance = new SingletonObserver();
static SingletonObserver() { }
private SingletonObserver()
{
Session.ObserveProperty(xx => xx.CurrentSystem, true)
.Subscribe(x =>
{
this.RaisePropertyChanged(() => this.UsersInCurrentSystem);
});
}
public static SingletonObserverInstance { get { return _instance; } }
public IObservable<User> UsersInCurrentSystem
{
get
{
var x = from user in Session.CurrentSystem.Users
select user;
return x.ToObservable();
}
}
}
[Export]
public class UserStatus : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private string _data = string.Empty;
public UserStatus
{
SingletonObserver.Instance.UsersInCurrentSystem.Subscribe(sender =>
{
//set _data according to information in sender
//raise PropertyChanged for Data
}
}
public string Data
{
get { return _data; } }
}
}
My problem is that after initial composition takes place, I don't get any renotification on changes when the data supplied to the Linq query changes.
By default MEF will only compose parts once. When a part has been composed, the same instance will be supplied to all imports. The part will not be recreated unless you explicitly do so.
In your case, if the data of a part change, even if it implements INotifyPropertyChanged, MEF will not create a new one, and you don't need to anyway.
I implemented INotifyPropertyChanged on the singleton, thinking it word make the exported class requery for a new IObservable
No.
Maybe I'm not understanding something about the lifetime of MEF containers, or about property notification.
Property notification allows you to react to a change in the property and has no direct effect on MEF. As for the container's lifetime, it will remain active until it is disposed. While it is still active, the container will keep references to it's compose parts. It's actually a little more complex than that, as parts can have different CreationPolicy that affects how MEF holds the part, I refer you to the following page: Parts Lifetime for more information.
MEF does allow for something called Recomposition. You can set it likewise:
[Import(AllowRecomposition=true)]
What this does tough is allow MEF to recompose parts when new parts are available or existing parts aren't available anymore. From what I understand it isn't what you are referring to in your question.