Hi I am using MVC 4 and C# to develop an application that has two controllers:
The first one is called Business, it has a method called Create that calls a method called CreatePartner from another Controller named PartnerController.
public class BusinessController : Controller
{
private storeContext db = new storeContext();
public ActionResult Create(Business business)
{
//Some stuff here
PartnerController pt = new PartnerController();
pt.CreatePartner(int partner_id);
//Here is another stuff that uses db DbContext variable
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
}
This is the second controller Called Partner
public class PartnerController : Controller
{
private storeContext db = new storeContext();
public void CreatePartner(int partner_id)
{
//Some interesting stuff
}
}
Each controllers has its Dispose() method
The Problem is: After I called the CreatePartnet method from Business controller I try to use the db variable again to save other data but it throws me the following exception:
The operation can not be completed because the DbContext has been disposed
-What is the best way to Use methods from one controller to another that has the same DbContext variable name?.
-Something strange happens: My stuff works locally but when I publish my code in the IIS server is when the app throws that exception.
Thanks!
Might I suggest an alternative approach?
Controllers are not very good places for business logic; that is they're not very good places for "doing stuff". It's often demonstrated in MVC tutorials and examples in this manner but it's really only good for getting into MVC quickly - it's not very good practice.
Furthermore Controllers aren't really supposed to have methods to be called - from themselves or called from another Controller. Controllers should really just contain their Actions.
Instead, extract your logic to an external class. A Service is a design pattern in which commonly used business logic is abstracted away. That way things can have a reference to the service and execute the logic without knowing anything about the implementation.
Observe:
IPartnerService
public interface IPartnerService
{
void CreatePartner(int partnerId);
}
DefaultPartnerService
public class DefaultPartnerService : IPartnerService
{
private StoreContext db;
public DefaultPartnerService()
{
db = new StoreContext();
}
public void CreatePartner(int partnerId)
{
// Something interesting
}
}
BusinessController
public class BusinessController : Controller
{
private IPartnerService _partnerService;
public BusinessController()
{
_partnerService = new DefaultPartnerService();
}
public ActionResult Create(Business business)
{
_partnerService.CreatePartner(business.PartnerId);
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
}
Of course this approach is also greatly simplified for educational purposes. It's not best practice yet, but it might put you on the right track. Eventually you'll discover problems with this approach and you'll gravitate to reading about Repositories, Unit of Work, Dependency Injection and so on.
Related
Im learning about generics and was wondering about how a generic controller, service and ef core repo design would look like.
My case: lets say an incomming post request to add Smartphone and keyboard object to smartphone and keyboard tables
My repository setup is
public class GenericRepository<TEntity> : IGenericRepository<TEntity>
where TEntity : class, IProductGenericEntities
{
private readonly MyDbContext _db;
public GenericRepository(MyDbContext db)
{
_db = db;
}
public async Task<bool> AddProduct(TEntity entity)
{
try
{
_db.Set<TEntity>().AddAsync(entity);
return (await _db.SaveChangesAsync()) > 0;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
return false;
}
}
}
And my service
public class ProductService<TEntity> : IProductService<TEntity>
where TEntity : class
{
private readonly IGenericRepository<TEntity> _repo;
public ProductService(IGenericRepository<TEntity> repo)
{
_repo = repo;
}
public async Task<bool> AddProduct(TEntity entity)
{
return await _repo.AddProduct(entity);
}
}
And my Controller.cs
[ApiController]
[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class ProductController
{
private readonly IProductService<Keyboards> _keyService;
private readonly IProductService<Smartphones> _smartService;
public ProductController(IProductService<Keyboards> keyService, IProductService<Smartphones> smartService)
{
_keyService = keyService;
_smartService = smartService;
}
[HttpPost("Post-generated-items")]
public async Task<ActionResult> PostProducts(List<TEntity> entities)
{
foreach(var item in entities)
{
and sort the objects here
}
}
}
is it correct to initialize 2 of IProductServices and sort the incomming objects to their correct DI on the controller?
private readonly IProductService<Keyboards> _keyService;
private readonly IProductService<Smartphones> _smartService;
Is there a way to make it more automatic by detecting incomming object type and then initilize it all the way to repo so i dont need 2 of IProductService<>?
Or is it what im doing plain wrong with a generic service layor?
Ok, so your approach is completely valid, i would not worry about initializing two repositories, since they're essentially empty memory vise since they just take reference to existant DbContext which by default is registered with Scoped lifecycle.
There will be a time when you need to use several repositories to complete task at hand. I would suggest going for NON-generic services approach. This way you could make ProductsService which has all the needed generic repositories injected and can orchestrate their work to achieve use case goal.
You might as well look into UOW (Unit Of Work) pattern for even more complex situations.
Answering your question:
Is there a way to make it more automatic by detecting incomming object type and then initilize it all the way to repo so i dont need 2 of IProductService<>?
You might write some code that would do just that for you using Reflection, but i would suggest against doing so. By initializing your repositories specifically you make yourself less error prone and code becomes more self-documenting.
For example now you have a controller that asks DI for two services and that instantly set's you up for what's going on in this controller. On the other hand if everything would be generic, you would end up with one huge knot of spaghetti that "Does everything".
In my asp mvc Framework project, using EF, I have some objects (from classes) whose fields store data coming from my database.
My question is :
How to populate these fields, or manage methods of these objects using a dbcontext variable ?
Sol 1: Is it better to use each time I need a connection with db in my classes with the instruction (using (resource), see below ) ?
Sol 2: Is it betterI to code a singleton class to use one instance of the context ?
Sol 3: Or should I use another way for the links beetween my classes and the database ?
What is the best method considering performances and code quality.
Thanks for your attention .
Solution 1
public class Test
{
private T1 a;
private T2 b;
public Test()
{}
public void CreateFrom (int id)
{
using (var db=new WebApplicationMVCTest.Models.dbCtx())
{
a=db.T1s.Find(id);
b= db.T2s.Find(a.id2);
}
}
Solution 2:
public class DbSingleton
{
private static dbCtx instance;
private int foo;
private DbSingleton ()
{}
public static dbCtx Current
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new dbCtx();
}
return instance;
}
}
public static void Set (dbCtx x)
{
if (instance==null)
{
instance = x;
}
}
}
For a web project, never use a static DbContext. EF DbContexts are not thread safe so handling multiple requests will lead to exceptions.
A DbContext's lifespan should only be as long as it is needed. Outside of the first time setup cost when a DbContext is used for the first time, instantiating DbContexts is fast.
My advice is to start simple:
public ActionResult Create(/* details */)
{
using (var context = new AppDbContext())
{
// do stuff.
}
}
When you progress to a point where you learn about, and want to start implementing dependency injection applications then the DbContext can be injected into your controller / service constructors. Again, from the IoC container managing the DbContext, the lifetime scope of the Context should be set to PerWebRequest or equivalent.
private readonly AppDbContext _context;
public MyController(AppDbContext context)
{
_context = context ?? throw new ArgumentNullException("context");
}
public ActionResult Create(/* details */)
{
// do stuff with _context.
}
The gold standard for enabling unit testing would be injecting a Unit of Work pattern and considering something like the Repository pattern to make your dependencies easier to unit test.
The best advice I can give you starting out with EF and MVC is to avoid the temptation to pass Entities between the controller (server) and the UI. (views) You will come across dozens of examples doing just this, but it is a poor choice for performance, it also hides a LOT of land mines and booby traps for both performance, exceptions, and data security issues. The most important detail is that when the UI calls the controller passing what you expect will be an entity, you are not actually getting an entity, but a de-serialized JSON object cast to an entity. It is not an entity that is tracked by the DbContext handling the request. Instead, get accustomed to passing view models (serializable data containers with the data the view needs or can provide) and IDs + values where the controller will re-load entities to update the data only as needed.
Maintenance Edit
After using this approach for a while I found myself only adding the exact same boilerplate code in every controller so I decided to do some reflection magic. In the meantime I ditched using MVC for my views - Razor is just so tedious and ugly - so I basically use my handlers as a JSON backend. The approach I currently use is to decorate my queries/commands with a Route attribute that is located in some common assembly like this:
[Route("items/add", RouteMethod.Post)]
public class AddItemCommand { public Guid Id { get; set; } }
[Route("items", RouteMethod.Get)]
public class GetItemsQuery : IQuery<GetItemsResponse> { }
// The response inherits from a base type that handles
// validation messages and the like
public class GetItemsResponse : ServiceResponse { }
I then implemented an MVC host that extracts the annotated commands/queries and generates the controllers and handlers for me at startup time. With this my application logic is finally free of MVC cruft. The query responses are also automatically populated with validation messages. My MVC applications now all look like this:
+ MvcApp
+- Global.asax
+- Global.asax.cs - Startup the host and done
+- Web.config
After realizing I really don't use MVC outside the host - and constantly having issues with the bazillion dependencies the framework has - I implemented another host based on NServiceKit. Nothing had to be changed in my application logic and the dependencies are down to System.Web, NServiceKit and NServiceKit.Text that takes good care of the model binding. I know it's a very similar approach to how NServiceKit/ServiceStack does their stuff but I'm now totally decoupled from the web framework in use so in case a better one comes along I just implement another host and that's it.
The situation
I'm currently working on an ASP.NET MVC site that's implementing the businesslogic-view separation via the IQueryHandler and ICommandHandler abstractions (using the almighty SimpleInjector for dependency injection).
The Problem
I've got to attach some custom validation logic to a QueryHandler via a decorator and that's working pretty well in and of itself. The problem is that in the event of validation errors I want to be able to show the same view that the action would have returned but with information on the validation error of course. Here is a sample for my case:
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private readonly IQueryHandler<SomeQuery, SomeTransport> queryHandler;
public ActionResult Index()
{
try
{
var dto = this.queryHandler.Handle(new SomeQuery { /* ... */ });
// Doing something awesome with the data ...
return this.View(new HomeViewModel());
}
catch (ValidationException exception)
{
this.ModelState.AddModelErrors(exception);
return this.View(new HomeViewModel());
}
}
}
In this scenario I have some business logic that's handled by the queryHandler that is decorated with a ValidationQueryHandlerDecorator that throws ValidationExceptions when it is appropriate.
What I want it to do
What I want is something along the lines of:
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private readonly IQueryHandler<SomeQuery, SomeTransport> queryHandler;
public ActionResult Index()
{
var dto = this.queryHandler.Handle(new SomeQuery { /* ... */ });
// Doing something awesome with the data ...
// There is a catch-all in place for unexpected exceptions but
// for ValidationExceptions I want to do essentially the same
// view instantiation but with the model errors attached
return this.View(new HomeViewModel());
}
}
I've been thinking about a special ValidationErrorHandlerAttribute but then I'm losing the context and I can't really return the proper view. The same goes with the approach where I just wrap the IQueryHandler<,> with a decorator... I've seen some strange pieces of code that did some string sniffing on the route and then instantiating a new controller and viewmodel via Activator.CreateInstance - that doesn't seem like a good idea.
So I'm wondering whether there is a nice way to do this ... maybe I just don't see the wood from the trees. Thanks!
I don't think there's a way to make the action method oblivious to this, since the action method is in control of the returned view model, and in case of a validation exception you need to return a view model with all the actual data (to prevent the user from losing his changes). What you might be able to do however to make this more convenient is add an extension method for executing queries in an action:
public ActionResult Index()
{
var result = this.queryHandler.ValidatedHandle(this.ModelState, new SomeQuery { });
if (result.IsValid) {
return this.View(new HomeViewModel(result.Data));
}
else
{
return this.View(new HomeViewModel());
}
}
The ValidatedHandle extension method could look like this:
public static ValidatedResult<TResult> ValidatedHandle<TQuery, TResult>(
this IQueryHandler<TQuery, TResult> handler,
TQuery query, ModelStateDictionary modelState)
{
try
{
return new ValidatedResult<TResult>.CreateValid(handler.Handle(query));
}
catch (ValidationException ex)
{
modelState.AddModelErrors(ex);
return ValidatedResult<TResult>.Invalid;
}
}
Do note that you should only catch such validation exception if the validation is on data that the user has entered. If you send a query with parameters that are set programmatically, a validation exception simply means a programming error and you should blog up, log the exception and show a friendly error page to the user.
I'm creating a class library API that wraps business logic and access to an SQL Server database via Entity Framework 6.
I've designed it using the Unit of work and repository patterns.
The purpose is to make it easy to use and to unit test.
Business logic and validation will be performed in the service layer.
I will not use an IOC container because I feel that it would complicate the API
usage.
The project have 15 repositories and services
The current design is as follows:
Service Layer A -> Unit of work -> Repository A and or B
Service Layer B -> Unit of work -> Repository B and or A...
...
public class ServiceA : IServiceA, IService
{
private readonly IUnitOfWork unitOfWork;
public AssetService(IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
this.unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
}
...
public IList<DomainObjectA> GetAll()
{
return unitOfWork.RepositoryA.GetAll();
}
public void Dispose()
{
unitOfWork.Dispose();
}
...
}
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
{
private readonly MyDbContext context = new MyDbContext();
private IRepositoryA repositoryA;
private IRepositoryB repositoryB;
...
public IRepositoryA RepositoryA
{
get { return repositoryA = repositoryA ?? new RepositoryA(context); }
}
public IRepositoryB RepositoryB
{
get { return repositoryB = repositoryB ?? new RepositoryB(context); }
}
...
public void Save()
{
context.SaveChanges();
}
public void Dispose()
{
context.Dispose();
}
}
public class RepositoryA : Repository, IRepositoryA
{
public RepositoryA(MyDbContext context)
: base(context) {}
public IList<DomainObjectA> GetAll()
{
return context.tblA.ToList().Select(x => x.ToDomainObject()).ToList();
}
...
}
Since this is an API that should be used by other projects, I need a nice and "fairly" easy to use interface for the user that consumes the API.
Because of this the UnitOfWork is created in this "public interface" between the user and the service layer, see below.
I also think it's best that the using-statement lies within the API so that the db-context is disposed properly and immediately after each service call.
I started out using the Proxy pattern for this:
Example:
public class ProxyA : Proxy, IServiceA
{
public IList<DomainObjectA> GetAll()
{
using (var service = GetService<ServiceA>())
return service.GetAll();
}
...
}
public abstract class Proxy
{
protected T GetService<T>() where T : IService
{
return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T), new object[] { new UnitOfWork()});
}
}
But this would require me to create a proxy for each service. I could of course skip the service interface in the proxy and create a common proxy which handles all the services.
I've also looked at the Facade pattern but can't decide which pattern to use for this particular scenario.
My questions:
Is this a good approach or are there any other design patterns that will solve this problem?
Also, should there be one public API entry point or several, grouped by some business logic?
I see nothing wrong with your design and the patterns you use.
Regarding the proxy pattern it is your call if you want to use it or not. As you mention you have to create boiler plate code to create one for every service. If it is arguable if you want to use it only to hide the call to the db service, or you prefer to add that line of code every time you call the service (and make sure you do it to avoid leaks). Also you may consider if you may need to add extra functionality in the Proxy in the future, which will put extra weight to create the proxy option.
Regarding a single entry point or several, I would create a ServiceA, ServiceB, ServiceC etc (so several) grouped for business logic domains. Typically you'll have between 5-20 (just an approximate number to give an idea of the magnitude)
You may want to review the interface segregation principle which supports this idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_segregation_principle
Is it a good practice to access a HttpContext session outside the controller in separate helper class?
====================
Should the controller take all the responsibility of getting the data from the session and transfer to a helper class
Example
HomeController : BaseController
{
var value1 = Httpcontext.Session["key1"];
var value2 = Httpcontext.Session["key2"];
var val...
CallAMethod(value1,value2,val...);
}
Or should it mock HttpContextBase and use it as in the following?
HomeController : BaseController
{
//Use Dependency Injection pattern
CallAMethod(base.SessionWrapper);
}
Implementation of ISessionWrapper is
public interface ISessionWrapper
{
T GetFromSession<T>(string key);
SetInSession(string key, object value);
}
public class HttpContextSessionWrapper : ISessionWrapper
{
private T GetFromSession<T>(string key)
{
return (T) HttpContext.Session[key];
}
private void SetInSession(string key, object value)
{
HttpContext.Session[key] = value;
}
}
public class BaseController : Controller
{
public ISessionWrapper SessionWrapper { get; set; }
public BaseController()
{
SessionWrapper = new HttpContextSessionWrapper();
}
}
Apparently you want to have some testability in your code (after all that's why you're going through the burden of creating an ISessionWrapper).
Both approaches have ups and downs.
Using the HttpContext directly
Quicker to develop
Need some thoughts on testing class. Nemely the ability to emulate a HttpContext. Doable with library available on the NET.
Using dependency injection (ISessionWrapper):
Slower to develop
Need to "reinvent the wheel" regarding access to the HttpContext
A lot more code to write and mantain
So, I would ponder the pros and cons of both approaches and decide depending on my goals.
However, personally, I would choose the path that require a lot less code to write.
Edited to Add
In reply to the heart of the question (after a nag in from the OP) the controller should always manage the data gathering before passing them to the actuators.