I've seen some high-level information about load balancing, but am struggling to put the pieces together. Here's what I've reviewed:
Load Balancing in gRPC (gRPC GitHub)
gRPC Load Balancing (gRPC blog)
gRPC on HTTP/2 Engineering a Robust, High-performance Protocol (gRPC blog)
gRPC client-side load balancing (Microsoft guide)
Java gRPC Custom Client-side load balancing (Stack Overflow)
Obviously the core pieces are a resolver and a load balancer. My use case is that I have several static, known addresses. I simply want to prioritize them as primary, secondary, etc. I believe the pick_first policy will work for this.
What I can't figure out is how to set up a custom NameResolver. I've defined a custom NameResolverProvider:
public class StaticResolverProvider extends NameResolverProvider {
#Value("${tls.enabled}")
private boolean isTlsEnabled;
#Override
protected boolean isAvailable() {
return true;
}
#Override
protected int priority() {
return 10;
}
#Override
public NameResolver newNameResolver(URI targetUri, Args args) {
return new StaticResolver();
}
#Override
public String getDefaultScheme() {
return isTlsEnabled ? "https" : "http";
}
}
and (hopefully) registered it while creating my Channel:
new NameResolverRegistry().register(new StaticResolverProvider());
Finally, here is the (currently unimplemented) NameResolver:
public class StaticResolver extends NameResolver {
#Override
public String getServiceAuthority() {
return null;
}
#Override
public void shutdown() {
}
}
These are the only two methods I see that need to be implemented. Neither of these seem to have anything to do with returning an ordered list of known addresses. The getServiceAuthority() mentions authentication, which confuses me because I don't know what the NameResolver has to do with authentication.
Please advise on what I'm missing. Thanks!
Update
I figured out the Name Resolver piece. First off, registering my resolver with my Channel looked a little different:
NameResolverRegistry.getDefaultRegistry().register(new StaticResolverProvider());
In my NameResolverProvider, I updated the getDefaultScheme() method to return "customScheme", which is the piece that would link it to my channel's call to forTarget().
The final piece was to implement the refresh() method in my NameResolver:
#Override
public void refresh() {
ResolutionResult.Builder resolutionResultBuilder = ResolutionResult.newBuilder();
List<EquivalentAddressGroup> servers = new ArrayList<>();
servers.add(new EquivalentAddressGroup(new InetSocketAddress("localhost", 50055)));
servers.add(new EquivalentAddressGroup(new InetSocketAddress("localhost", 50056)));
resolutionResultBuilder.setAddresses(Collections.unmodifiableList(servers));
listener.onResult(resolutionResultBuilder.build());
}
These are the only two methods I see that need to be implemented.
Those are the abstract ones. But the main one you need to implement is refresh() which is defined as no-op but needs to be overridden in your implementation to do anything useful. You can look at UdsNameResolver to see how refresh() is implemented and follow that pattern.
The getServiceAuthority() mentions authentication
You can ignore that for your use-case.
Related
New to WebFlux, reactive, and handlers.
I am able to get a Mono<> from a ServerRequest and process the contained POJO to add a new tuple to a database. But, it seems like there should be a "better" or "more accepted" way to write this code.
Any help/input with the code in AccountRequestHandler would be appreciated, especially with explanations of the rationale behind the recommend change(s).
Router implementation (stripped down to only "POST")...
#Configuration
public class AccountRequestRouter {
#Bean
public RouterFunction<ServerResponse> route(AccountRequestHandler requestHandler) {
return nest(path("/v2"),
nest(accept(APPLICATION_JSON),
.andRoute(RequestPredicates.POST("/accounts"), requestHandler::addAccount)
));
}
}
Handler implementation...
The code where I'm actually doing the add, and then separately creating a ServerResponse, is what I'm focused on. It seems "clunky", especially since AccountService.addAccount() returns a Mono on completion.
#Component
public class AccountRequestHandler {
#Autowired
private mil.navy.ccop.service.accounts.account.AccountService accountService;
public Mono<ServerResponse> addAccount(ServerRequest request) {
return request.bodyToMono(Account.class).flatMap(account -> {
accountService.addAccount(account);
return ServerResponse.ok().build();
})
.switchIfEmpty(ServerResponse.badRequest()
.contentType(APPLICATION_JSON)
.build(Mono.empty()));
}
}
AccountService implementation (again, stripped down)...
#Service
class AccountService {
#Autowired
private AccountRepository accounts;
public AccountService() {
}
public Mono<Void> addAccount(Account account) {
Account proxy;
// make sure that accountId is set to support auto-generation of synthetic key value
proxy = new Account(-1, account.getShortName(), account.getLongName(), account.getDescription());
accounts.save(proxy);
return Mono.empty();
}
}
Appreciating all the help in ramping up on this style of programming....
well first of all, you have 2 addAccount, that can be a bit confusing.
Second of all, what kind of "repository" are you writing too? if its an sql repo you need to properly wrap it in a Mono.fromCallable() otherwise it will block the Reactive thread pool and you can have really bad performance.
Yes there are other ways of doing things. A lot of people tend to do things in flatmap or map and sure it is completely possible to do things here, but for the semantics i'd say it is less good.
map and flatmap are usually used to perform some sort of computation on the inner value of the mono and then return the same or a new value and or type inside the mono.
i would rewrite this like such.
return void here:
public void addAccount(Account account) {
Account proxy;
// make sure that accountId is set to support auto-generation of synthetic key value
proxy = new Account(-1, account.getShortName(), account.getLongName(), account.getDescription());
accounts.save(proxy);
}
And here:
public Mono<ServerResponse> addAccount(ServerRequest request) {
return request.bodyToMono(Account.class)
.doOnSuccess(account -> {
accountService.addAccount(account);
}).then(ServerResponse.ok().build())
.switchIfEmpty(ServerResponse.badRequest()
.contentType(APPLICATION_JSON)
.build());
}
there are a number of different doOn methods that are ment to be used to consume and do "side effects" on things. Like doOnSuccess, doOnError, doOnCancel etc. etc.
you also have then and thenReturn which will just return whatever you put in them. Then returns whatever Mono you put in it. thenReturn wraps whatever value you put into it into a Mono and returns it.
I have a concurrent issue, my WebSocket was used spring-message,
when my chatroom has a lot of people it will very slow.
So I try to find how, and I found some problem where the WebSocketSession using sendMessage, it has a synchronized in class websocketServerSockJsSession
#Override
public void sendMessageInternal(String message) throws SockJsTransportFailureException {
// Open frame not sent yet?
// If in the session initialization thread, then cache, otherwise wait.
if (!this.openFrameSent) {
synchronized (this.initSessionLock) {
if (!this.openFrameSent) {
this.initSessionCache.add(message);
return;
}
}
}
so if they have 200 chat in one second it will be very slow,
I found the implement of WebSocketSession call ConcurrentWebSocketSessionDecorator.
But I can't cast WebSocketServerSockJsSession to ConcurrentWebSocketSessionDecorator, I can't find how to set my WebSocketSession.
I can't change the sockJS.
So how can I do if I use the sockJS and I want to use ConcurrentWebSocketSessionDecorator method?
is another way to implement the ConcurrentWebSocketSessionDecorator sendMessage or I can do some property setting and make my WebSocketSession turn to ConcurrentWebSocketSessionDecorator?
this my config setting
#Configuration
#EnableWebMvc
#EnableWebSocket
public class SpringWebSocketConfig extends WebMvcConfigurerAdapter implements WebSocketConfigurer {
#Override
public void registerWebSocketHandlers(WebSocketHandlerRegistry registry) {
registry.addHandler(webSocketHandler(), "/websocket/send").addInterceptors(new HandshakeInterceptor()).setAllowedOrigins("*");
registry.addHandler(webSocketHandler(), "/websocket/sockjs").addInterceptors(new HandshakeInterceptor()).setAllowedOrigins("*").withSockJS();
}
As its name suggests, the ConcurrentWebSocketSessionDecorator is a Decorator.
This decorator overrides some functions such as sendMessage of WebSocketSession, and WebSocketServerSockJSession performs its actions through its webSocketSession, so changing webSocketSession to ConcurrentWebSocketSessionDecorator can solve the problem.
ConcurrentWebSocketSessionDecorator currentWebSocketSessionDecorator = new ConcurrentWebSocketSessionDecorator (session, 1000, 1024);
wsSockJsSession.initializeDelegateSession((WebSocketSession)concurrentWebSocketSessionDecorator);
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am developing a new WebApi using .NetCore2.2, Autofac4, Dapper. There are few very basic questions because this is my first WebApi project. As part of this project I have to write both unit-test and integration-test.
My questions are as follows (Sample Code is give below):
What is recommended return type between "Task< IActionResult >" and "Task< IEnumerable >"?
Recommended object Scope of the dependencies in startup class for my project?
Do I really need UnitOfWork for this given project structure?
What are the flaws if I follow this design?
Is there any better way to design this API?
As TDD do I need write test cases for API layer(Controller) and Infrastructure layer only or Doman Layer (it doesn't have any logic) as well?
What are the scenario I must include in my controller unit test?
Domain Layer:
[Table("Movie")]
public class Movie
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int ID {get;set;}
public string Title {get;set;}
}
public interface ICommandRepository<T> where T : class
{
Task CreateAsync(T entity);
Task UpdateAsync(T entity);
Task DeleteAsync(T entity);
}
public interface IQueryRepository<T> where T : class
{
Task<IEnumerable<T>> GetAllMoviesAsync();
Task<IEnumerable<T>> GetMoviesByTitleAsync(string title);
Task<T> GetMovieByIDAsync(int id);
}
Infrastructure Layer:
public class MovieCommandContext : DbContext
{
public MovieCommandContext(DbContextOptions<MovieCommandContext> options)
: base(options)
{}
public DbSet<Movie> Movies { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
}
public class MovieQueryContext : IDisposable
{
private readonly IDbConnection connection;
public MovieQueryContext(string connectionString)
{
connection = new SqlConnection(connectionString);
}
public async Task<IEnumerable<Movie>> GetAllMovies()
{
// Use Dapper->QueryAsync
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
...
public void Dispose()
{
if (connection?.State == ConnectionState.Open)
connection.Close();
}
}
public class MovieCommandRepository : ICommandRepository<Movie>
{
private readonly MovieCommandContext context;
public MovieCommandRepository(MovieCommandContext dbContext)
{
context = dbContext;
}
public async Task CreateAsync(Movie movie)
{
await context.AddAsync<Movie>(movie);
await context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
public async Task UpdateAsync(Movie movie)
{
var entity = context.Attach<Movie>(movie);
context.Entry<Movie>(movie).State = EntityState.Modified;
await context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
public async Task DeleteAsync(Movie movie)
{
context.Remove<Movie>(movie);
await context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
}
public class MovieQueryRepository : IQueryRepository<Movie>
{
private readonly MovieQueryContext context;
public MovieQueryRepository(MovieQueryContext dbContext)
{
context = dbContext;
}
public async Task<IEnumerable<Movie>> GetAllMoviesAsync()
{
return await context.GetAllMovies();
}
public async Task<IEnumerable<Movie>> GetMoviesByTitleAsync(string title)
{
return await context.GetMovieByName(title);
}
public async Task<Movie> GetMovieByIDAsync(int id)
{
return await context.GetMovieByID(id);
}
}
API Layer:
[Route("api/sample")]
[ApiController]
public class SampleController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly ICommandRepository<Movie> movieCommand;
private readonly IQueryRepository<Movie> movieQuery;
public SampleController(ICommandRepository<Movie> command, IQueryRepository<Movie> query)
{
movieCommand = command;
movieQuery = query;
}
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IActionResult> GetMoviesAsync()
{
try
{
var movies = await movieQuery.GetAllMoviesAsync();
return Ok(movies);
}
catch
{
// TODO: Logging
return BadRequest();
}
}
[Route("{name:alpha}")]
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IActionResult> GetMoviesByTitle(string movieTitle)
{
try
{
var movies = await movieQuery.GetMoviesByTitleAsync(movieTitle);
return Ok(movies);
}
catch
{
// TODO: Logging
return BadRequest();
}
}
[Route("{movieID:int:min(1)}")]
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IActionResult> GetMovieByID(int movieID)
{
try
{
var movie = await movieQuery.GetMovieByIDAsync(movieID);
return Ok(movie);
}
catch
{
// TODO: Logging
return BadRequest();
}
}
[Route("")]
[HttpDelete("{id:int:min(1)}")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Delete(int id)
{
try
{
var movie = await movieQuery.GetMovieByIDAsync(id);
if (movie == null)
return BadRequest();
await movieCommand.DeleteAsync(movie);
return Ok();
}
catch
{
// TODO: Logging
return BadRequest();
}
}
}
Startup.cs:
private void ConfigureContainer(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
var contextOptions = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<MovieCommandContext>()
.UseSqlServer(Configuration.GetConnectionString("DefaultConnection"))
.Options;
builder.RegisterType<MovieCommandContext>()
.WithParameter("options", contextOptions);
builder.RegisterType<MovieQueryContext>()
.AsSelf()
.WithParameter("connectionString",Configuration.GetConnectionString("DefaultConnection"));
builder.RegisterType<MovieCommandRepository>().As<ICommandRepository<Movie>>();
builder.RegisterType<MovieQueryRepository>().As<IQueryRepository<Movie>>();
}
Point 1:
You should return an IActionResult to return a propper Http response, instead of returning the Task<IEnumerable<Movie>>. That way you guarantee the S and the I of SOLID principles
Point 2 & 3:
see here: Entity Framework Core service default lifetime
Point 4:
IQueryRepository as some bad methods names. The names are tight coupled with domain concepts and they should not.
You are failing the Separation of concerns ( the S of SOLID).
ICommandRepository as an Add method that is being expose to some controller and not being used ( same as Update) here you are failing on the Interface segregation.
MovieQueryContext does not implement IDisposable pattern correctly please see here!
MovieQueryContext is different from MovieCommandContext on the way it initializes. Why? You should try to be coherent the way you design you types because it will give you reusability and apply the DRY principle.
Consider the effort you will need to to if the access to the database change to mongodb. Or if the access to the database changes to a remote service How many changes, and where do you do does changes to support that?
If Movie is a Domain Type it should not have attributes to any specific database access. keep it POCO as possible.
Point 5:
To design your API consider this post. The way you inject your dependencies should consider the lifetime of those objects. Keep in mind that in aspnet.core ApiControllers lifetime is per request. The way you manage your resources to access database should take that into consideration.
If you are considering CQRS, the controllers should be diferent. Keeping in mind the Separation of concerns regarding those responsabilities. One controller would have the responsability to expose some query API, and the other to process commands. There are good frameworks to support CQRS see this scott hanselman post.
Constraints exists on Route attribute not on Verbs.
Logging and Exception handling should be done on an ActionAttribute or on some Especific Middleware, because they are considered to be cross cutting concerns.
Delete Action does not comply to the Http protocol. please consider http rfc:
GetMoviesByTitle Action does not have the name parameter.
Point 6:
Unit tests should test business logic, mocking all the external dependencies with values relevant to the test in place. TDD methodology considers 3 main steps ( here for more details):
the first step consists on implementing the unit tests so it fails
Iterate on implementation of the method being test until it passes with success
Improve the implementation of the method being test
If you want to test your ApiController as being used with all the middleware integrated you need to have that environment put in place without using an actual server that open ports. To do that please consider the usage of TestServer ( see here and here )
1. What is recommended return type between "Task< IActionResult >" and "Task< IEnumerable < Movie > >"?
Even though the API allows you yo use the interface IActionResult, I wouldn't use it at all. Why? Semantics, the only way to know what the true return is, is to see the implementation. It's clearer if the returns is Task< IEnumerable< Movie>>.
If you need to throw a BadRequest or other http code, use the asp.net pipeline to handle this for you. See Notes below.
When using whatever tool to generate some sort of documentation of this API it won't help hiding the real result.
2. object Scope of the dependencies in startup class for my project?
Avoid sharing state between calls, to avoid future issues with synchronization just stick to scope dependencies per request. This may be a performance issue if you have a lot of requests, you can always change this later on. If it's an issue at all.
3. I really need UnitOfWork for this given project structure?
4. What are the flaws if I follow this design?
5. Is there any better way to design this API?
In hope of answering the above 3 questions. The problem I see is extending the functionality around Movie model. e.g. add a fourth action on ICommandRepository.
It seams it will grow vertically. It will only be a problem if multiple classes implement this interface, because they will all need to change. (Interface Segregation Principle)
A way to solve this is to use the Mediator pattern. Your controller will receive the mediator and the mediator will deliver the message to whoever handles it. With this type of solution you could have a class per operation and therefore your system can grow horizontally as new classes are added to the system. (Open Close Principle)
In time, you'll see that a lot of functionality can be reused and adding features is just a matter of configuration.
6. As TDD do I need write test cases for API layer(Controller) and Infrastructure layer only or Domain Layer (it doesn't have any logic) as well?
The idea of Testing in general is to test behavior, when TDDing that should be your mindset. In my experience I found that testing the whole behavior is better than multiple parts of the same behavior.
In this case, the API Layer is part of the infrastructure as is the persistence layer. They should have their own tests, the business rules (Application layer) should have their own tests. The application layer is what you want to last forever. The Api will change as technologies appear (windows forms, web forms, web apis, etc.) Regarding databases as well, you don't know if you want to stick with EF forever.
If the domain layer doesn't provide any behavior then there is nothing to test.
7. What are the scenario I must include in my controller unit test?
I would test using asp.net TestHost:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/test/integration-tests?view=aspnetcore-2.2
Test the if routing is correct, test failing scenarios and successful scenarios.
Some notes:
An exception in the Controller does not mean a BadRequest.
Logging is a cross cutting concern, don't just do it everywhere.
Either use the asp.net pipeline or just move this concern to
application layer.
It appears that MovieQueryRepository does nothing, so you don't need it.
This is just some remarks about your questions, there is much more to it. Just remember to keep things simple and organized.
Hope it helped, let me know!
Is instance of Feign thread safe...? I couldn't find any documentation that supports this. Do anyone out there think otherwise?
Here is the standard example posted on github repo for Feign...
interface GitHub {
#RequestLine("GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/contributors")
List<Contributor> contributors(#Param("owner") String owner, #Param("repo") String repo);
}
static class Contributor {
String login;
int contributions;
}
public static void main(String... args) {
GitHub github = Feign.builder()
.decoder(new GsonDecoder())
.target(GitHub.class, "https://api.github.com");
// Fetch and print a list of the contributors to this library.
List<Contributor> contributors = github.contributors("netflix", "feign");
for (Contributor contributor : contributors) {
System.out.println(contributor.login + " (" + contributor.contributions + ")");
}
}
Should I change this to following... Is it thread safe...?
interface GitHub {
#RequestLine("GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/contributors")
List<Contributor> contributors(#Param("owner") String owner, #Param("repo") String repo);
}
static class Contributor {
String login;
int contributions;
}
#Component
public class GithubService {
GitHub github = null;
#PostConstruct
public void postConstruct() {
github = Feign.builder()
.decoder(new GsonDecoder())
.target(GitHub.class, "https://api.github.com");
}
public void callMeForEveryRequest() {
github.contributors... // Is this thread-safe...?
}
}
For the example above... I've used spring based components to highlight a singleton. Thanks in advance...
This discussion seems to suggest that it is thread safe. (Talks about creating a new object being inefficient)
Had a look at the source and there doesn't seem to be any state that would make it unsafe. This is expected as it is modelled on the jersey Target. But you should get a confirmation from the Feign devs or do your own tests and review before using it in an unsafe way.
I was also looking, but unfortunately found nothing. The only signs provides in Spring configuration. The builder is defined as bean in scope prototype, so should not be thread safe.
#Configuration
public class FooConfiguration {
#Bean
#Scope("prototype")
public Feign.Builder feignBuilder() {
return Feign.builder();
}
}
reference: http://projects.spring.io/spring-cloud/spring-cloud.html#spring-cloud-feign-hystrix
After a deep dive into the feign-core code and a couple other feign modules (we needed additional support for things that weren't there so I had to modify some stuff -- plus, this question made me curious so I took another look), it looks like you should be safe re-using Feign clients in a multi-threaded environment as long as all of your local code (such as any custom Encoder, Expander, or RequestInterceptor classes, etc) has no mutable state.
The Feign internals don't store much in the way of mutable state, but some things are cached and re-used (thus may be called from multiple threads at the same time, if you are calling your Feign target's methods from multiple threads at the same time), so your plugins should be stateless.
It looks to me like all the main Feign modules were written with immutability and statelessness in mind as a goal.
In feign/core/src/main/java/feign/Client.java, there is a comment
/**
* Submits HTTP {#link Request requests}. Implementations are expected to be thread-safe.
*/
public interface Client {
So, from the designer's point of view, it should be thread-safety.
I am looking to integrate NServiceBus into an existing ServiceStack web host. ServiceStack is currently using the built in Funq IoC container. NServiceBus has been configured (elsewhere in the system) to use Unity for IoC.
ServiceStack has a feature whereby IRequestContext will be automatically injected when it finds the IRequiresRequestContext interface on a class. NServiceBus has a similar feature for Message Mutators, via the IMutateOutgoingTransportMessages interface.
The application is a multi-tenant application. Single application, which via an API Key, passes an account code through to the NServiceBus handler (indirectly via a provider that is called on the construction of the handler's constructor injection using Unity).
My problem arises in ServiceStack. I am using a request filter to drag the API key out of the request headers, which I look-up in a database, and then finally write into the IHttpRequest.Items collection:
appHost.RequestFilters.Add((req, res, requestDto) =>
{
var tenant = tenantRepository.GetByApiKey(
req.Items.Add("AccountCode", tenant.AccountCode);
}
I then have an NServiceBus transport message mutator, that implements that IRequiresRequestContext interface, and this class is located in the same assembly as the ServiceStack services registered in the AppHost:
public class MessageHeaderMutator : IMutateOutgoingTransportMessages, INeedInitialization, IRequiresRequestContext
{
#region IRequiresRequestContext Members
public IRequestContext RequestContext { get; set; }
#endregion
#region IMutateOutgoingTransportMessages Members
public void MutateOutgoing(object[] messages, NServiceBus.TransportMessage transportMessage)
{
transportMessage.Headers.Add("AccountCode", RequestContext.Get<IHttpRequest>().Items["AccountCode"].ToString());
}
#endregion
#region INeedInitialization Members
public void Init()
{
Configure.Instance.Configurer.ConfigureComponent<MessageHeaderMutator>(DependencyLifecycle.InstancePerCall);
}
#endregion
}
However, RequestContext is never injected, and is always null. My theory is that the two interface injections, injected via the two separate frameworks, are somehow clashing.
I have a workaround, which is to use the ServiceStack HostContext.Items instead, as per this discussion, but I am concerned that the HostContext is not a per request collection, so I might end up writing data to the wrong tenant. Workaround is:
// app host
appHost.RequestFilters.Add((req, res, requestDto) =>
{
var accountCode = tenantRepository.GetByApiKey(
HostContext.Instance.Items.Add("AccountCode", client.AccountCode);
}
// message mutator
public class MessageHeaderMutator : IMutateOutgoingTransportMessages, INeedInitialization
{
#region IMutateOutgoingTransportMessages Members
public void MutateOutgoing(object[] messages, NServiceBus.TransportMessage transportMessage)
{
var accountCode = HostContext.Instance.Items["AccountCode"].ToString();
transportMessage.Headers.Add("AccountCode", accountCode);
}
#endregion
#region INeedInitialization Members
public void Init()
{
Configure.Instance.Configurer.ConfigureComponent<MessageHeaderMutator>(DependencyLifecycle.InstancePerCall);
}
#endregion
}
My question is therefore twofold:
The first is, why does IRequiresRequestContext not correctly inject RequestContext into the Message mutator, or is there a way to inject RequestContext manually?
Is the use of the HostContext safe to assume it is per request?
Bonus question: Is the use of two separate IoC containers in the same project (Unity in NServiceBus and Funq in ServiceStack) a really bad idea? Would it be smarter to get ServiceStack to use the same Unity IoC container as NServiceBus?
P.S. This is NServiceBus 4 (beta at time of writing).
It is precisely because you're using 2 different containers that DI doesn't work for you out of the box for objects registered in different containers.
You don't necessarily need to standardize on a single container (though it would save you from dealing with these sorts of issues all the time).
What you can do to keep working with both containers is to tell the NServiceBus container how to resolve IRequiresRequestContext like this:
public class RequestContextBootstrapper : INeedInitialization
{
public void Init()
{
Configure.Component<IRequiresRequestContext>( /* get object from ServiceStack */ );
}
}
You can access the ServiceStack container via AppHostBase.Container and use it to resolve your objects as Udi suggested.