Is it possible to run Fluent Security without IOC? My application does not currently use IOC, hence the reason for the question.
Yes, FluentSecurity does not require an IoC-container (it never has).
However, if you need to replace anything in FluentSecurity or if you need dependency injection for your policies, you need a way to provide FluentSecurity with those instances/dependencies.
Related
Every article about dependency injection in Drupal says, that you should use and that it is a best practice.
I know how to use it and I'm using it in my code.
But I don't about a reason why it is best practice to use it? Why it is a best approach and why I should use it? Why we should avoid to call service as static \Drupal::service('database')?
Is it related with performance issues?
In articles which describe Dependency injection in Drupal no information about the reason why to use DI. Just only designation that everyone should use it.
Dependency Injection is a software design approach that allows avoiding hard-coding dependencies and makes it possible to change the dependencies both at runtime and compile time.
Unity, Autofac and probably quite a few other Dependency injection packages all support "keyed dependency injection containers" that allow to register multiple implementations of an interface and identify them uniquely via a key (be it a string, an int, an enum or whatever else).
However, .NET Core, so far I can see at least, doesn't have such a feature and if I were to try to implement anything like this, I'd have to do a workaround or find some hacky solutions for it. I am wondering, is there a particular reason this has not been introduced in .NET Core?
Unity example:
container.RegisterType<IService, ServiceImplementation1>("1");
container.RegisterType<IService, ServiceImplementation2>("2");
Autofac example:
builder.RegisterType<ServiceImplementation1>().Keyed<IService>("1");
builder.RegisterType<ServiceImplementation2>().Keyed<IService>("2");
...,is there a particular reason this has not been introduced in .NET Core?
Short answer: Yes
Reference Default service container replacement
The built-in service container is designed to serve the needs of the framework and most consumer apps. We recommend using the built-in container unless you need a specific feature that the built-in container doesn't support, such as:
Property injection
Injection based on name (a.k.a keyed)
Child containers
Custom lifetime management
Func support for lazy initialization
Convention-based registration
note: emphasis mine
What are the required steps to use SimpleMembership (ASP.NET MVC 4) with RavenDB (or other databases) instead of SQL Server?
I am used to override the MembershipProvider but how does it work with the new SimpleMembership?
I saw there is a SimpleMembershipProvider so I think I should override it, but I don't know if the methods are for storing data purpose only or if they should contain business/validation logic)...
What about configuration? I know the InitializeDatabaseConnection method is normally responsible for initializing the whole shebang, but I don't think I should call it if I don't use Entity Framework.
Unfortunately, I did not find a lot of resources about the new SimpleMembership except two links which have not been very useful:
http://igambin.blogspot.ca/2012/08/simplemembershipprovider-huh.html
http://blog.osbornm.com/archive/2010/07/21/using-simplemembership-with-asp.net-webpages.aspx
So here is what I found after looking at some of the the source code (MVC4).
http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/view/553690ac9488#src%2fWebMatrix.WebData%2fExtendedMembershipProvider.cs
SimpleMembership is an implementation of the abstract class ExtendedMembershipProvider.
The code inside SimpleMembership is mostly SQL operations and some calls to the underlying (called "previous" in the documentation) MembershipProvider.
I don't think it is of any use (in my case) to override SimpleMembership as its implementation is mostly tied to SQL Server. Instead, for what I understand, I should implement ExtendedMembershipProvider. Then, by setting this implementation in the web.config file, the WebSecurity helper would bypass SimpleMembership (default implementation) and call my implementation of the ExtendedMembershipProvider.
I don't think I will do this any soon since it looks even more complicated than before (more methods to implement)... but still doable.
However, all this said, I'm a bit disappointed that we still have to work with the MembershipProvider which, IMHO, is far (a lot of static and internal stuff) from the whole dependency injection thing that we love so much with ASP.Net MVC/WebApi.
Edit 1
This question was aked before Jon Galloway wrote this tutorial :
http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2012/08/29/simplemembership-membership-providers-universal-providers-and-the-new-asp-net-4-5-web-forms-and-asp-net-mvc-4-templates.aspx
But my answer stays valid as this (taken from Jon Galloway article) resumes it:
Note that SimpleMembership still requires some flavor of SQL Server -
it won't work with MySQL, NoSQL databases, etc. You can take a look at
the code in WebMatrix.WebData.dll using a tool like ILSpy if you'd
like to see why - there are places where SQL Server specific SQL
statements are being executed, especially when creating and
initializing tables. It seems like you might be able to work with
another database if you created the tables separately, but I haven't
tried it and it's not supported at this point.
Here's my implementation for mongodb. Maybe it can help
https://github.com/malibeg/MongodbSimpleMembershipProvider#readme
SimpleMembership is not really meant to be used with the old MembershipProviders as it doesn't fullfill all of the same contracts that are assumed of normal MembershipProviders. Its mostly designed for use via the WebSecurity helper.
This link might be helpful for more info: Web Pages Tutorial
I'm implementing a Custom RoleProvider in the .NET Membership-framework. The existing functionally needs a little tweaking, so I want to implemenet my own Public Functions, to invoke around the static Roles-class.
Instead of Object -> Roles -> RolesProvider
I would go Object -> RolesProvider
Would this be considered bad practice? The only alternative with the current databasescheme is to ommit the use of RoleProvider totally, and implement my own custom system for authorization.
Edit: To clarify, I have already implemented a custom MembershipProvider, so the desire to keep working in the Membership-framework is pretty high.
Any time you circumvent part of a framework or customize it in a way that was not intended it could be considered bad practice. It is the intention of the ASP.NET membership provider framework to facilitate access to the current provider through the Roles class.
The danger of 'bending' the framework to suit your needs instead of extending it as intended is this: there may be other areas in the .net framework, configuration or tools around the role membership functionality that make this assumption, and they may no longer make sense after your changes and cause confusion for others involved in your project. The ASP.NET Website Administration Tool is one example of a tool that makes this assumption. If someone were to use this tool after your changes, your role memberships and site could be potentially corrupted as a result.
If you decide to take this approach you should carefully consider what functionality you are adding and ultimately ask yourself it is really necessary. If it is, you may be better off implementing something completely custom instead to avoid confusion.
I want to isolate all my code from the IoC container library that I have chosen (Unity). To do so, I created an IContainer interface that exposes Register() and Resolve(). I created a class called UnityContainerAdapter that implements IContainer and that wraps the real container. So only the assembly where UnityContainerAdapter is defined knows about the Unity library.
I have a leak in my isolation thought. Unity searches for attributes on a type's members to know where to inject the dependencies. Most IoC libraries I have seen also support that. The problem I have is that I want to use that feature but I don’t want my classes to have a dependency on the Unity specific attribute.
Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve this issue?
Ideally I would create my own [Dependency] attribute and use that one in my code. But I would need to tell the real container the search for my attribute instead of its own.
Check out the Common Service Locator project:
The Common Service Locator library
contains a shared interface for
service location which application and
framework developers can reference.
The library provides an abstraction
over IoC containers and service
locators. Using the library allows an
application to indirectly access the
capabilities without relying on hard
references. The hope is that using
this library, third-party applications
and frameworks can begin to leverage
IoC/Service Location without tying
themselves down to a specific
implementation.
Edit: This doesn't appear to solve your desire to use attribute-based declaration of dependency injection. You can either choose not to use it, or find a way to abstract the attributes to multiple injection libraries (like you mentioned).
That is the basic problem with declarative interfaces -- they are tied to a particular implementation.
Personally, I stick to constructor injection so I don't run into this issue.
I found the answer: Unity uses an extension to configure what they call "selector policies". To replace the attributes used by Unity, you just code your own version of the UnityDefaultStrategiesExtension class and register you own "selector policies" that use your own attributes.
See this post on the Unity codeplex site for details on how to do that.
I'm not sure that it's going to be easy to do the same if I switch to another IoC library but that solves my problem for now.
Couldn´t you just setup your configuration without the attributes, in xml. That makes it a bit more "unclear" I know, personally I use a combination of xml and attributes, but at least it "solves" your dependency on unity thing.