Is it possible to pass a list constructor parameter when resolving a type? I want to use a programmatic configuration if possible. I've been playing around with the Parameters method as shown below, but I've not yet stumbled upon the answer.
container.Register(
Component
.For<IDoSomething>()
.ImplementedBy<DoSomething>()
.Parameters(...)
);
The DoSomething class would look something like this
public class DoSomething : IDoSomething
{
public DoSomething(List<string> listOfStrings)
{
...
}
}
Aha!
container.Register(
Component
.For<IDoSomething>()
.ImplementedBy<DoSomething>()
.Parameters(new { listOfStrings = someList })
);
Related
I'm defining some custom Exceptions in Dart.
I want in my logic to check the type of exception and base my processing on that, so I want to create distinct classes for each, for example like this :
class FailedToLoadCriticalDataException implements Exception { } // app cannot continue
class FailedToLoadNonCriticalDataException implements Exception { } // app can continue
However I also want to pass 2 parameters when I create these types of exceptions, the type of API call, and the API url, and the definition for that would look like this :
class UrlCallFailedException implements Exception {
String _dataTypeName;
String _urlEndpoint;
UrlCallFailedException([this._dataTypeName, this._urlEndpoint]);
#override
String toString() {
return "(${this.runtimeType.toString()}) Failed to fetch $_dataTypeName ($_urlEndpoint)";
}
}
Now what I want to do is (replace the initial definitions I made earlier and re)define my FailedToLoadCriticalDataException and FailedToLoadNonCriticalDataException classes so that they are exactly the code that is in the UrlCallFailedException class.
Is there any way to simply say something like class FailedToLoadCriticalDataException **is** UrlCallFailedException; and not need to duplicate the code that defines UrlCallFailedException ?
class FailedToLoadCriticalDataException implements UrlCallFailedException{ } is wrong because it is "Missing concrete implementations of 'getter UrlCallFailedException._dataTypeName',.."
class FailedToLoadCriticalDataException extends UrlCallFailedException{ } is wrong because when I got to throw FailedToLoadNonCriticalDataException("Foo", url); it's expectation is that there are no params ("Too many positional arguments: 0 expected, but 2 found.").
Is there a way to create multiple classes that behave exactly the same as another type and differ only in their class, without duplicating all the code ?
I've come up with this as a decent compromise :
class FailedToLoadCriticalDataException extends UrlCallFailedException {
FailedToLoadCriticalDataException([dataTypeName, urlEndpoint]) {
super._dataTypeName = dataTypeName;
super._urlEndpoint = urlEndpoint;
}
}
class FailedToLoadNonCriticalDataException extends UrlCallFailedException {
FailedToLoadNonCriticalDataException([dataTypeName, urlEndpoint]) {
super._dataTypeName = dataTypeName;
super._urlEndpoint = urlEndpoint;
}
}
Some, but minimal, code duplication, and I can now call throw FailedToLoadNonCriticalDataException("Foo", url); in my code later.
I'm using inversify-express-utils using the shortcut decorators (#GET, #POST...) within a node application.
Is it possible to inject middleware into the controller to use with these decorators?
Example of what I'm trying to achieve (doesn't work):
export class TestController implements Controller {
constructor(#inject(TYPES.SomeMiddleware) private someMiddleware: ISomeMiddleware) {}
#Get('/', this.someMiddleware.someMiddlewhereMethod())
public test() {
...
}
}
Like #OweR ReLoaDeD said, currently you can't do that with middleware injected through the controller constructor, due to the way decorators work in TypeScript.
However, you can achieve the same effect by wrapping the controller definition in a function that accepts a kernel, like so:
controller.ts
export function controllerFactory (kernel: Kernel) {
#injectable()
#Controller('/')
class TestController {
constructor() {}
#Get('/', kernel.get<express.RequestHandler>('Middleware'))
testGet(req: any, res: any) {
res.send('hello');
}
}
return TestController;
}
main.ts
let kernel = new Kernel();
let middleware: express.RequestHandler = function(req: any, res: any, next: any) {
console.log('in middleware');
next();
};
kernel.bind<express.RequestHandler>('Middleware').toConstantValue(middleware);
let controller = controllerFactory(kernel);
kernel.bind<interfaces.Controller>(TYPE.Controller).to(controller).whenTargetNamed('TestController');
let server = new InversifyExpressServer(kernel);
// ...
UPDATE
I added an example to the inversify-express-examples repo that showcases this approach using both custom and third-party middleware.
You should be able to use middleware please refer to the following unit tests as an example.
Update
I don't think that is possible because decorators are executed when the class is declared. The constructor injection takes place when the class instance is created (which is after it has been declared). This means that, when the decorator is executed, this.someMiddleware is null.
I'm afraid you won't be able to inject the middleware into the same class that uses it but you can do the following:
import { someMiddlewareMethod} from "middleware";
class TestController implements Controller {
#Get('/', someMiddlewareMethod())
public test() {
// ...
}
}
This is not a limitation of InversifyJS this is a limitation caused by the way decorators work.
I'm trying to bind current instance to the class method, please note ES6 syntax.
class SomeClass {
search() => { ... }
}
Which is 100% legit code, however, babelify doesn't want to compile it
SyntaxError: /Users/vladmiller/Projects/test/test/client/test/app/pages/Search.react.js: Unexpected token (50:26) while parsing file: /Users/vladmiller/Projects/test/test/client/test/app/pages/Search.react.js\
Instead, now I have to bind context in class constructor
class SomeClass {
constructor() {
this.search = this.search.bind(this)
}
search() { ... }
}
Which is quite annoying and boring.
UPD: It turns out that this is invalid ES6 syntax; therefore the question is follows. What is the best way to bind instance context to a class method?
UPD2: By default context should be attached, however, the issue with React http://jsbin.com/citafaradu/2/edit?js,console,output
This code is not valid ES2015. Prototype methods are defined like this:
class SomeClass {
search() { /* ... */ }
}
I have a typed factory interface as follows:
public interface ILogMessageFactory
{
ILogMessage Create(LogMessageType logMessageType, String text);
}
and I am registering it all follows:
public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store)
{
container.AddFacility<TypedFactoryFacility>();
container.Register(
Component.For(typeof(ConsolePrompter)),
Component.For<ILogger>().ImplementedBy<ConsoleLogger>().LifeStyle.Transient,
Component.For<ILogMessageFactory>().AsFactory(),
Component.For<ILogMessage>().ImplementedBy<LogMessage>().LifeStyle.Transient
);
}
The problem is that I want to implement the ILogMessageFactory.Create method myself, to set a few things before I return.
I've tried the obvious naïve solution without any success:
Component.For<ILogMessageFactory>().ImplementedBy<LogMessageFactory>().AsFactory()
Am I approaching this wrong? Should I just keep all initialization in the constructor of the given object?
use ITypedFactoryComponentSelector if this is something that really belongs to the factory. Alternatively use .OnCreate() on the component the factory resolves
How do I register IPetFactory<TPet> to be resolved with DefaultPetFactory<TPet> where TPet can be any class based on Pet in the example below?
I'd like to be able to resolve IPetFactory<Dog> with DefaultPetFactory<Dog>.
I've just found examples using BasedOn where the Factory itself is based on a class, not the generic argument.
class Pet
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
class Fish : Pet {}
class Dog : Pet {}
class Cat : Pet { }
interface IPetFactory<TPet> where TPet : Pet;
class DefaultPetFactory<TPet> : IPetFactory<Pet> where TPet : Pet
{
// default implementation
}
My real implementation has a lot of classes based on Pet so I'm looking for a more generic approach than just calling register on each of them.
EDIT:
I found out the problem wasn't what I thought it was. It was due to the generic arguments and an exception of “the arity of the generic type definition” which caused my problems.
And I over-simplified my example. In my real implementation I have to generic arguments and it turns out Windsor need the the same generic parameters to be able to resolve the type.
If I do like this it won't work.
class Owner
{
}
class DefaultPetFactory<TPet> : IPetFactory<Owner, TPet> where TPet : Pet
{
// default implementation
}
If I do like this it will:
class DefaultPetFactory<TOwner, TPet> : IPetFactory<TOwner, TPet>
where TOwner : Owner
where TPet : Pet
{
// default implementation
}
If anyone has a better solution to this, preferably with the registrations it's appreciated. I don't like to change my classes to make the registration work.
(For the updated question)
There is a ticket in Windsor's issue tracker to support scenarios like that (feel free to vote for it), but in general this is something very hard to implement... generically (no pun intended), and as far as I know no container currently supports it.
In Windsor 3 you can workaround it by implementing a new interface called IGenericImplementationMatchingStrategy doing roughly the following (untested, I'm writing this from memory):
public class PetMatcher: IGenericImplementationMatchingStrategy
{
public Type[] GetGenericArguments(ComponentModel model, CreationContext context)
{
if (SomePreconditionToMakeSureThatsReallyTheScenarioDescribedAbove() == false )
{
return null;// which will fallback to default behaviour
}
// implementation needs just one generic arg, second of two the interface has
return new[]{ context.GenericArguments[1] };
}
}
You then register this as follows:
Container.Register(
Classes.FromAssemblyContaining(typeof(IPetFactory<,>)).BasedOn(typeof(IPetFactory<,>))
.WithServiceBase()
.Configure(
c => c.ExtendedProperties(
Property.ForKey(ComponentModel.GenericImplementationMatchingStrategy)
.Eq(new PetMatcher()))));