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.
Related
Given I have a factory class responsible for constructing instances of a certain service that has constructor parameters that can only be resolved at runtime, is there a way to leverage container-driven decoration?
Consider the following class which relies on a parameter that is only defined at runtime:
interface IFooService
{
void DoServicyStuff();
}
class MyFooService : IFooService
{
public MyFooService(string somePeskyRuntimeArgument)
{
this.peskyValue = somePeskyRuntimeArgument;
}
public void DoServicyStuff()
{
// do some stuff here with the peskyValue...
}
}
Since the value can only be provided at runtime, we need to move away from the constructor injection and into a method-level parameter passing. This is commonly achieved using a factory implementation like this:
interface IFooServiceFactory
{
IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter);
}
class FooServiceFactory : IFooServiceFactory
{
public IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return new MyFooService(heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter);
}
}
While this works fine if the intent is to just abstract away the construction of the service, it poses a challenge to decorate the IFooService instance.
For scenarios where no runtime parameter is involved, this can be easily achieved by tapping into the container to provide our service for us. The example below uses the Scrutor library to decorate the interface with a logging decorator implementation:
class FooServiceFactory : IFooServiceFactory
{
private readonly IServiceProvider serviceProvider;
public FooServiceFactory(IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
this.serviceProvider = serviceProvider
}
public IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return this.serviceProvider.GetRequiredInstance<IFooService>();
}
}
...
services
.AddTransient<IFooService, MyFooService>()
.AddTransient<IFooServiceFactory, FooServiceFactory>()
.Decorate<IFooService, LoggingFooService>();
But since MyFooService takes a primitive value as an argument, we cannot rely on GetRequiredService<T> to obtain the instance, as it will fail to find "a registration for string" when building the concrete class.
Similarly, changing the factory to rely on ActivatorUtilities's .CreateInstance or .CreateFactory methods will end up creating the objects while completely ignoring the container registrations, thus leaving us without any decorator.
I know I have at least 2 options to decorate the objects manually, namely:
Using the factory itself to manually create the decorator:
public IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return new LoggingService(
new MyFooService(heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter));
}
Using a factory decorator to inject a decorator after the instance is created:
abstract class FooServiceFactoryDecorator : IFooServiceFactory
{
private readonly IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory;
protected FooServiceFactory(IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory)
{
this.fooServiceFactory = fooServiceFactory;
}
public virtual IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return this.fooServiceFactory.CreateService(heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter);
}
}
class LoggingFooServiceFactory : FooServiceFactoryDecorator
{
private readonly IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory;
public FooServiceFactory(IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory)
{
this.fooServiceFactory = fooServiceFactory;
}
public override IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return new LoggingFooService(
this.fooServiceFactory.CreateService(heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter));
}
}
...
services
.AddTransient<IFooServiceFactory, FooServiceFactory>()
.Decorate<IFooServiceFactory, LoggingFooServiceFactory>()
Neither of these allows me to directly use .Decorate on top of the service interface. The first option works but is heavily coupled (meaning I'd have to keep changing it if I want to add other decorators into the mix), while the second version is less coupled, but still forces me to writing one factory decorator per service decorator and thus leads into a much more complex solution.
Another pain point is dependencies on the decorators themselves (for example, ILogger<T> on the LoggingFooService), which I could potentially solve by leveraging ActivatorUtilities to create the decorators instead of newing them up manually.
I could also potentially generalize the "factory decorator" so that the decoration function is parameterized and thus the class can be reused, but it is still very convoluted and hard to maintain, while also not providing as good a syntax for consumers to add new decorators.
class DecoratedFooServiceFactory<TDecorator> : FooServiceFactoryDecorator
where TDecorator : IFooService
{
private readonly IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory;
private readonly IServiceProvider serviceProvider;
public FooServiceFactory(
IFooServiceFactory fooServiceFactory,
IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
this.fooServiceFactory = fooServiceFactory;
this.serviceProvider = serviceProvider;
}
public override IFooService CreateService(string heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter)
{
return ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<TDecorator>(
this.serviceProvider,
this.fooServiceFactory.CreateService(heyItsNowAMethodLevelPeskyParameter));
}
}
...
services
.AddTransient<IFooServiceFactory, FooServiceFactory>()
.Decorate<IFooServiceFactory, DecoratedFooServiceFactory<LoggingFooService>>()
And finally, if I ever want to move away from using a factory and want to change to using the service directly, this will cause a significant setup change where I'd then have to configure all the decorators again in the container directly instead of just removing the factory registration as one normally would do.
How can I use a factory like this, while still keeping the capability of configuring decorators at the container level using the simple Scrutor syntax?
Ok, a couple of disclaimers first:
I agree with Steven here in that this looks like an anti-pattern and you will probably be better off redesigning your code to not require run-time values on service construction.
I additionally want to caution against using scrutor-like Decorate. While much less confident in this than in the first point, I believe hiding logging in decorators is much less convenient in the long run than it seems at first. Or at least that's what I saw after about a year of trying them out.
That said, let's see what can be done.
First, let's put some constraints on where the value is coming from. Specifically, let's say we can have a service providing that value, that looks like this:
public interface IValueProvider
{
string Get();
}
This actually allows us to have quite a bit of range. Implementation of that interface can:
Get value from external API - once or periodically in the background. It can even call it every time Get is called, but this is a very bad idea, as it will make construction asynchronous.
Get value that is stored in memory and allow some other service to update it. Say, expose a 'configuration' endpoint where a user can set a new value every once in a while.
Calculate the value based on some algorithm of your choice.
Once you have this service, you can register it like this:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddSingleton<IValueProvider, AwesomeValueProvider>();
services.AddSingleton<IFooServiceFactory, FooServiceFactory>();
services.AddTransient<IFooService>(sp =>
{
var factory = sp.GetRequiredService<IFooServiceFactory>();
var valueProvider = sp.GetRequiredService<IValueProvider>();
return factory.Create(valueProvider.Get());
});
}
Hope this helps
Topic needs to configrable via config file.
Below is the code. I wonder if this is the best solution or any built-in support, or better solution?
public class TopicNameConvention : ITopicNameConvention
{
private readonly Config _config;
public TopicNameConvention(Config config)
{
_config= config;
}
public string GetTopic(Type eventType)
{
switch (eventType.Name)
{
case nameof(Order):
return _config.Topic.Name;
//... more
}
throw new Exception("Topic name not exist");
}
}
If you intention is to manually be able to configure the topic name for each of your event types, then please go for it.
My own personal opinions is that this seems pretty rigid, and I would fear that you would have to update too many things at the same time, whenever you introduce a new event type.
Why not just go with
public string GetTopic(Type eventType) => eventType.Name;
which can handle all .NET types in the world (just be sure that you do not have two event types with the same name in two different namespaces).
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.
Sorry if this is stupid question, because I'm a bit confused about .NET remoting and distributed object.
I want to write a webservice, and in one of its methods, I want user to pass one my object's instance as parameter. It will greatly reduces number of parameters, and help user call this method more effectively. I create some class, but when distributing them to client, only class name remains, all properties and methods are gone, just like this
public class CameraPackages
{
private readonly List<CameraPackage> _packages;
public CameraPackages()
{
_packages = new List<CameraPackage>();
}
public void AddNewCamera(CameraPackage package)
{
_packages.Add(package);
}
public void RemoveCamera(CameraPackage package)
{
if(_packages.Contains(package))
_packages.Remove(package);
else
throw new ArgumentException();
}
}
into this: (in Reference.cs)
[System.CodeDom.Compiler.GeneratedCodeAttribute("System.Xml", "2.0.50727.3082")]
[System.SerializableAttribute()]
[System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepThroughAttribute()]
[System.ComponentModel.DesignerCategoryAttribute("code")]
[System.Xml.Serialization.XmlTypeAttribute(Namespace="http://tempuri.org/")]
public partial class CameraPackages {
}
How can I do to allow user use my object?
Thank you so much.
Web Services will only serialise public properties, so you can't do that (in that way) using web services.
You will need to manage your list of objects client side, then send the data in a transfer object (a class with just properties).
Have a look at this.
I'm trying to work out how to complete my implementation of the Repository pattern in an ASP.NET web application.
At the moment, I have a repository interface per domain class defining methods for e.g. loading and saving instances of that class.
Each repository interface is implemented by a class which does the NHibernate stuff. Castle Windsor sorts out the DI of the class into the interface according to web.config. An example of an implemented class is provided below:
public class StoredWillRepository : IStoredWillRepository
{
public StoredWill Load(int id)
{
StoredWill storedWill;
using (ISession session = NHibernateSessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
storedWill = session.Load<StoredWill>(id);
NHibernateUtil.Initialize(storedWill);
}
return storedWill;
}
public void Save(StoredWill storedWill)
{
using (ISession session = NHibernateSessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
using (ITransaction transaction = session.BeginTransaction())
{
session.SaveOrUpdate(storedWill);
transaction.Commit();
}
}
}
}
As pointed out in a previous thread, the repository class needs to accept an unit of work container (i.e. ISession) rather than instantiating it in every method.
I anticipate that the unit of work container will be created by each aspx page when needed (for example, in a property).
How do I then specify that this unit of work container instance is to be passed into the constructor of StoredWillRepository when Windsor is creating it for me?
Or is this pattern completely wrong?
Thanks again for your advice.
David
I have a persistence framework built on top of NHibernate that is used in a few Web apps. It hides the NH implementation behind an IRepository and IRepository<T> interface, with the concrete instances provided by Unity (thus I could in theory swap out NHibernate for, say, Entity Framework fairly easily).
Since Unity doesn't (or at least the version I'm using doesn't) support the passing in of constructor parameters other than those that are dependency injections themselves, passing in an extant NH ISession isn't possible; but I do want all objects in the UOW to share the same ISession.
I solve this by having a controlling repository class that manages access to the ISession on a per-thread basis:
public static ISession Session
{
get
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
// if a cached session exists, we'll use it
if (PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.ContainsKey(SESSION_KEY))
{
return (ISession)PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items[NHibernateRepository.SESSION_KEY];
}
else
{
// must create a new session - note we're not caching the new session here... that's the job of
// BeginUnitOfWork().
return _factory.OpenSession(new NHibernateInterceptor());
}
}
}
}
In this example, PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items accesses an IList<object> that is stored either ThreadStatic if not in a Web context, or within HttpContext.Current.Items if it is in a Web context (to avoid thread-pool problems). The first call to the property instantiates the ISession from the stored factory instance, subsequent calls just retrieve it from storage. The locking will slow things down slightly but not as much as just locking an appdomain-scoped static ISession instance.
I then have BeginUnitOfWork and EndUnitOfWork methods to take care of the UOW - I have specifically disallowed nested UOWs because frankly they were a pain to manage.
public void BeginUnitOfWork()
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
if (PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.ContainsKey(SESSION_KEY))
EndUnitOfWork();
ISession session = Session;
PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.Add(SESSION_KEY, session);
}
}
public void EndUnitOfWork()
{
lock (_lockObject)
{
if (PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.ContainsKey(SESSION_KEY))
{
ISession session = (ISession)PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items[SESSION_KEY];
PersistenceFrameworkContext.Current.Items.Remove(SESSION_KEY);
session.Flush();
session.Dispose();
}
}
}
Finally, a pair of methods provide access to the domain-type-specific repositories:
public IRepository<T> For<T>()
where T : PersistentObject<T>
{
return Container.Resolve<IRepository<T>>();
}
public TRepository For<T, TRepository>()
where T : PersistentObject<T>
where TRepository : IRepository<T>
{
return Container.Resolve<TRepository>();
}
(Here, PersistentObject<T> is a base class providing ID and Equals support.)
Access to a given repository is thus in the pattern
NHibernateRepository.For<MyDomainType>().Save();
This is then facaded over such that you can use
MyDomainType.Repository.Save();
Where a given type has a specialised repository (ie needs more than it can get from IRepository<T>) then I create an interface deriving from IRepository<T>, an extending implementation inheriting from my IRepository<T> implementation, and in the domain type itself I override the static Repository property using new
new public static IUserRepository Repository
{
get
{
return MyApplication.Repository.For<User, IUserRepository>();
}
}
(MyApplication [which is called something less noddy in the real product] is a facade class which takes care of supplying the Repository instance via Unity so you have no dependency on the specific NHibernate repository implementation within your domain classes.)
This gives me full pluggability via Unity for the repository implementation, easy access to the repository in code without jumping through hoops, and transparent, per-thread ISession management.
There's lots more code than just what's above (and I've simplified the example code a great deal), but you get the general idea.
MyApplication.Repository.BeginUnitOfWork();
User user = User.Repository.FindByEmail("wibble#wobble.com");
user.FirstName = "Joe"; // change something
user.LastName = "Bloggs";
// you *can* call User.Repository.Save(user), but you don't need to, because...
MyApplication.Repository.EndUnitOfWork();
// ...causes session flush which saves the changes automatically
In my Web app, I have session-per-request, so BeginUnitOfWork and EndUnitOfWork get called in BeginRequest and EndRequest respectively.
I have a pretty similar structure to yours, and here's how I solve your question:
1) To specify my container on each method, I have a separate class ("SessionManager") which I then invoke via a static property. By doing so, here's an example using my Save implementation:
private static ISession NHibernateSession
{
get { return SessionManager.Instance.GetSession(); }
}
public T Save(T entity)
{
using (var transaction = NHibernateSession.BeginTransaction())
{
ValidateEntityValues(entity);
NHibernateSession.Save(entity);
transaction.Commit();
}
return entity;
}
2) My container is not created on each ASPX page. I instantiate all of my NHibernate goodness on the global.asax page.
** A few more things spring up **
3) You don't need to have a helper to instantiate the Load. You might as well use Get instead of Load. More information # Difference between Load and Get.
4) Using your current code, you would have to repeat pretty much the same code for each domain object you need (StoredWillRepository, PersonRepository, CategoryRepository, etc..?), which seems like a drag. You could very well use a generic class to operate over NHibernate, like:
public class Dao<T> : IDao<T>
{
public T SaveOrUpdate(T entity)
{
using (var transaction = NHibernateSession.BeginTransaction())
{
NHibernateSession.SaveOrUpdate(entity);
transaction.Commit();
}
return entity;
}
}
In my implementation, I could then use something like:
Service<StoredWill>.Instance.SaveOrUpdate(will);
Technically, the answer to my question is to use the overload of container.Resolve which allows you to specify the constructor argument as an anonymous type:
IUnitOfWork unitOfWork = [Code to get unit of work];
_storedWillRepository = container.Resolve<IStoredWillRepository>(new { unitOfWork = unitOfWork });
But let's face it, the answers provided by everyone else have been much more informative.