ASP.NET MVC - Abstraction between Data and Object Layers - asp.net

I am using ASP.NET EntityFramework MVC (All Latest) with Visual Studio 2013.
I am attempting to come up with a unifying means of standardizing the abstraction between my object and data layer.
I know that many people like to use the IRepository pattern with MVC. My biggest issue with this is that it forces you to create and maintain a second object type (The Repository) for each of the objects that you want to maintain. My solution has been to combing the IRepository method with a Static Factory pattern to make a Static Repository, for instance:
public class SiteDatabase : DbContext
{
// Singleton
private static SiteDatabase _Instance;
public static SiteDatabase Instance
{
get
{
if (_Instance == null)
{
_Instance = new SiteDatabase();
}
return _Instance;
}
}
public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }
}
public class User : IUser
{
public static User Create(string UserName)
{
User item = new User();
item.UserName = UserName;
SiteDatabase.Instance.Users.Add(item);
return item;
}
public static User Find(string UserName)
{
return SiteDatabase.Instance.Users.SingleOrDefault(x => x.UserName == UserName);
}
public static User[] All()
{
return SiteDatabase.Instance.Users.ToArray();
}
public string Id { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
protected User()
{
Id = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
}
public void Delete()
{
SiteDatabase.Instance.Users.Remove(this);
}
}
public class Page
{
public static Page Create(string PageName)
{
...
}
public static Page Find(string PageName)
{
...
}
public static Page[] All()
{
...
}
...
public void Delete()
{
...
}
}
My question is: will this pattern cause me to miss out on any built-in functionality that the normal repository pattern would allow me to capture?
The non-static methods could be handled with an interface, but what about the static methods? Is there any way to have a base class that ensures that static methods will exist in derived classes?

Related

Asp Mvc 6 Model Validation with a service in custom ValidationAttribute

TLDR: In Asp Mvc 6 how do I perform model validation with a service using data annotations? What are the alternatives?
I have a very simple model
public class MyModel
{
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
I also have a service that exposes some simple validation methods
public interface IMyService
{
string[] ReservedWords { get; }
bool IsValidName(string name);
// Internally calls IsValidName and throws an Exception if the name is invalid
void Save(MyModel myModel);
// ... snip
}
And I have wired up my controller like so
public class MyController : Controller
{
private readonly IMyService _service;
public MyController(IMyService service)
{
_service = service;
}
// ... snip
public IActionResult Post(MyModel myModel)
{
if (!_service.IsValidName(input?.Name))
{
ModelState.AddModelError(nameof(MyModel.Name), "Invalid Name");
}
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return View(myModel);
}
_service.Save(myModel);
return RedirectToAction(nameof(Index));
}
}
It feels a bit clucky to have 2 stages of validation - automatic model validation then manually performing service validation. I was hoping that something simialr to this would work
public class MyModel
{
[ServiceValidation(nameof(IMyService), nameof(IMyService.IsValidName)]
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public ServiceValidationAttribute : ValidationAttribute
{
private readonly Type _interfaceOrClass;
private readonly string _methodOrProperty;
public ServiceValidationAttribute(Type interfaceOrClass, string methodOrProperty)
{
_interfaceOrClass = interfaceOrClass;
_methodOrProperty = methodOrProperty;
}
public override bool RequiresValidationContext => true;
protected override ValidationResult IsValid(object value, ValidationContext validationContext)
{
var service = validationContext.GetService(_interfaceOrClass);
// Extension method in shared library to assist with reflection
bool isValid = _interfaceOrClass.ValueForMethodOrPropertyNamed<bool>(service, _methodOrProperty, value);
return isValid
? ValidationResult.Success
: new ValidationResult(ErrorMessage);
}
}
However var serivce is always null, is there any way around this? I have wired up the IMyService to an implementation in the Startup.cs as it is available in the Controller.
Alternatively is there a better way of adding to the ModelState with a service?

EntityType 'IdentityUserLogin' has no key defined. Define the key for this EntityType

I am working with Entity Framework Code First and MVC 5. When I created my application with Individual User Accounts Authentication I was given an Account controller and along with it all the required classes and code that is needed to get the Indiv User Accounts authentication to work.
Among the code already in place was this:
public class ApplicationDbContext : IdentityDbContext<ApplicationUser>
{
public ApplicationDbContext() : base("DXContext", throwIfV1Schema: false)
{
}
public static ApplicationDbContext Create()
{
return new ApplicationDbContext();
}
}
But then I went ahead and created my own context using code first, so I now have the following too:
public class DXContext : DbContext
{
public DXContext() : base("DXContext")
{
}
public DbSet<ApplicationUser> Users { get; set; }
public DbSet<IdentityRole> Roles { get; set; }
public DbSet<Artist> Artists { get; set; }
public DbSet<Paintings> Paintings { get; set; }
}
Finally I have the following seed method to add some data for me to work with whilst developing:
protected override void Seed(DXContext context)
{
try
{
if (!context.Roles.Any(r => r.Name == "Admin"))
{
var store = new RoleStore<IdentityRole>(context);
var manager = new RoleManager<IdentityRole>(store);
var role = new IdentityRole { Name = "Admin" };
manager.Create(role);
}
context.SaveChanges();
if (!context.Users.Any(u => u.UserName == "James"))
{
var store = new UserStore<ApplicationUser>(context);
var manager = new UserManager<ApplicationUser>(store);
var user = new ApplicationUser { UserName = "James" };
manager.Create(user, "ChangeAsap1#");
manager.AddToRole(user.Id, "Admin");
}
context.SaveChanges();
string userId = "";
userId = context.Users.FirstOrDefault().Id;
var artists = new List<Artist>
{
new Artist { FName = "Salvador", LName = "Dali", ImgURL = "http://i62.tinypic.com/ss8txxn.jpg", UrlFriendly = "salvador-dali", Verified = true, ApplicationUserId = userId },
};
artists.ForEach(a => context.Artists.Add(a));
context.SaveChanges();
var paintings = new List<Painting>
{
new Painting { Title = "The Persistence of Memory", ImgUrl = "http://i62.tinypic.com/xx8tssn.jpg", ArtistId = 1, Verified = true, ApplicationUserId = userId }
};
paintings.ForEach(p => context.Paintings.Add(p));
context.SaveChanges();
}
catch (DbEntityValidationException ex)
{
foreach (var validationErrors in ex.EntityValidationErrors)
{
foreach (var validationError in validationErrors.ValidationErrors)
{
Trace.TraceInformation("Property: {0} Error: {1}", validationError.PropertyName, validationError.ErrorMessage);
}
}
}
}
My solution builds fine, but when I try and access a controller that requires access to the database I get the following error:
DX.DOMAIN.Context.IdentityUserLogin: : EntityType 'IdentityUserLogin' has no key defined. Define the key for this EntityType.
DX.DOMAIN.Context.IdentityUserRole: : EntityType 'IdentityUserRole' has no key defined. Define the key for this EntityType.
What am I doing wrong? Is it because I have two contexts?
UPDATE
After reading Augusto's reply, I went with Option 3. Here is what my DXContext class looks like now:
public class DXContext : DbContext
{
public DXContext() : base("DXContext")
{
// remove default initializer
Database.SetInitializer<DXContext>(null);
Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = false;
Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
}
public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }
public DbSet<Role> Roles { get; set; }
public DbSet<Artist> Artists { get; set; }
public DbSet<Painting> Paintings { get; set; }
public static DXContext Create()
{
return new DXContext();
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().ToTable("Users");
modelBuilder.Entity<Role>().ToTable("Roles");
}
public DbQuery<T> Query<T>() where T : class
{
return Set<T>().AsNoTracking();
}
}
I also added a User.cs and a Role.cs class, they look like this:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string FName { get; set; }
public string LName { get; set; }
}
public class Role
{
public int Id { set; get; }
public string Name { set; get; }
}
I wasn't sure if I would need a password property on the user, since the default ApplicationUser has that and a bunch of other fields!
Anyways, the above change builds fine, but again I get this error when the application is ran:
Invalid Column name UserId
UserId is an integer property on my Artist.cs
In my case I had inherited from the IdentityDbContext correctly (with my own custom types and key defined) but had inadvertantly removed the call to the base class's OnModelCreating:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder); // I had removed this
/// Rest of on model creating here.
}
Which then fixed up my missing indexes from the identity classes and I could then generate migrations and enable migrations appropriately.
The problem is that your ApplicationUser inherits from IdentityUser, which is defined like this:
IdentityUser : IdentityUser<string, IdentityUserLogin, IdentityUserRole, IdentityUserClaim>, IUser
....
public virtual ICollection<TRole> Roles { get; private set; }
public virtual ICollection<TClaim> Claims { get; private set; }
public virtual ICollection<TLogin> Logins { get; private set; }
and their primary keys are mapped in the method OnModelCreating of the class IdentityDbContext:
modelBuilder.Entity<TUserRole>()
.HasKey(r => new {r.UserId, r.RoleId})
.ToTable("AspNetUserRoles");
modelBuilder.Entity<TUserLogin>()
.HasKey(l => new {l.LoginProvider, l.ProviderKey, l.UserId})
.ToTable("AspNetUserLogins");
and as your DXContext doesn't derive from it, those keys don't get defined.
If you dig into the sources of Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.EntityFramework, you will understand everything.
I came across this situation some time ago, and I found three possible solutions (maybe there are more):
Use separate DbContexts against two different databases or the same database but different tables.
Merge your DXContext with ApplicationDbContext and use one database.
Use separate DbContexts against the same table and manage their migrations accordingly.
Option 1:
See update the bottom.
Option 2:
You will end up with a DbContext like this one:
public class DXContext : IdentityDbContext<User, Role,
int, UserLogin, UserRole, UserClaim>//: DbContext
{
public DXContext()
: base("name=DXContext")
{
Database.SetInitializer<DXContext>(null);// Remove default initializer
Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = false;
}
public static DXContext Create()
{
return new DXContext();
}
//Identity and Authorization
public DbSet<UserLogin> UserLogins { get; set; }
public DbSet<UserClaim> UserClaims { get; set; }
public DbSet<UserRole> UserRoles { get; set; }
// ... your custom DbSets
public DbSet<RoleOperation> RoleOperations { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<PluralizingTableNameConvention>();
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<OneToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
// Configure Asp Net Identity Tables
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().ToTable("User");
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().Property(u => u.PasswordHash).HasMaxLength(500);
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().Property(u => u.Stamp).HasMaxLength(500);
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().Property(u => u.PhoneNumber).HasMaxLength(50);
modelBuilder.Entity<Role>().ToTable("Role");
modelBuilder.Entity<UserRole>().ToTable("UserRole");
modelBuilder.Entity<UserLogin>().ToTable("UserLogin");
modelBuilder.Entity<UserClaim>().ToTable("UserClaim");
modelBuilder.Entity<UserClaim>().Property(u => u.ClaimType).HasMaxLength(150);
modelBuilder.Entity<UserClaim>().Property(u => u.ClaimValue).HasMaxLength(500);
}
}
Option 3:
You will have one DbContext equal to the option 2. Let's name it IdentityContext. And you will have another DbContext called DXContext:
public class DXContext : DbContext
{
public DXContext()
: base("name=DXContext") // connection string in the application configuration file.
{
Database.SetInitializer<DXContext>(null); // Remove default initializer
Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = false;
Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
}
// Domain Model
public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }
// ... other custom DbSets
public static DXContext Create()
{
return new DXContext();
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<PluralizingTableNameConvention>();
// IMPORTANT: we are mapping the entity User to the same table as the entity ApplicationUser
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().ToTable("User");
}
public DbQuery<T> Query<T>() where T : class
{
return Set<T>().AsNoTracking();
}
}
where User is:
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required, StringLength(100)]
public string Name { get; set; }
[Required, StringLength(128)]
public string SomeOtherColumn { get; set; }
}
With this solution, I'm mapping the entity User to the same table as the entity ApplicationUser.
Then, using Code First Migrations you'll need to generate the migrations for the IdentityContext and THEN for the DXContext, following this great post from Shailendra Chauhan: Code First Migrations with Multiple Data Contexts
You'll have to modify the migration generated for DXContext. Something like this depending on which properties are shared between ApplicationUser and User:
//CreateTable(
// "dbo.User",
// c => new
// {
// Id = c.Int(nullable: false, identity: true),
// Name = c.String(nullable: false, maxLength: 100),
// SomeOtherColumn = c.String(nullable: false, maxLength: 128),
// })
// .PrimaryKey(t => t.Id);
AddColumn("dbo.User", "SomeOtherColumn", c => c.String(nullable: false, maxLength: 128));
and then running the migrations in order (first the Identity migrations) from the global.asax or any other place of your application using this custom class:
public static class DXDatabaseMigrator
{
public static string ExecuteMigrations()
{
return string.Format("Identity migrations: {0}. DX migrations: {1}.", ExecuteIdentityMigrations(),
ExecuteDXMigrations());
}
private static string ExecuteIdentityMigrations()
{
IdentityMigrationConfiguration configuration = new IdentityMigrationConfiguration();
return RunMigrations(configuration);
}
private static string ExecuteDXMigrations()
{
DXMigrationConfiguration configuration = new DXMigrationConfiguration();
return RunMigrations(configuration);
}
private static string RunMigrations(DbMigrationsConfiguration configuration)
{
List<string> pendingMigrations;
try
{
DbMigrator migrator = new DbMigrator(configuration);
pendingMigrations = migrator.GetPendingMigrations().ToList(); // Just to be able to log which migrations were executed
if (pendingMigrations.Any())
migrator.Update();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
ExceptionManager.LogException(e);
return e.Message;
}
return !pendingMigrations.Any() ? "None" : string.Join(", ", pendingMigrations);
}
}
This way, my n-tier cross-cutting entities don't end up inheriting from AspNetIdentity classes, and therefore I don't have to import this framework in every project where I use them.
Sorry for the extensive post. I hope it could offer some guidance on this. I have already used options 2 and 3 in production environments.
UPDATE: Expand Option 1
For the last two projects I have used the 1st option: having an AspNetUser class that derives from IdentityUser, and a separate custom class called AppUser. In my case, the DbContexts are IdentityContext and DomainContext respectively. And I defined the Id of the AppUser like this:
public class AppUser : TrackableEntity
{
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.None)]
// This Id is equal to the Id in the AspNetUser table and it's manually set.
public override int Id { get; set; }
(TrackableEntity is the custom abstract base class that I use in the overridden SaveChanges method of my DomainContext context)
I first create the AspNetUser and then the AppUser. The drawback with this approach is that you have ensured that your "CreateUser" functionality is transactional (remember that there will be two DbContexts calling SaveChanges separately). Using TransactionScope didn't work for me for some reason, so I ended up doing something ugly but that works for me:
IdentityResult identityResult = UserManager.Create(aspNetUser, model.Password);
if (!identityResult.Succeeded)
throw new TechnicalException("User creation didn't succeed", new LogObjectException(result));
AppUser appUser;
try
{
appUser = RegisterInAppUserTable(model, aspNetUser);
}
catch (Exception)
{
// Roll back
UserManager.Delete(aspNetUser);
throw;
}
(Please, if somebody comes with a better way of doing this part I appreciate commenting or proposing an edit to this answer)
The benefits are that you don't have to modify the migrations and you can use any crazy inheritance hierarchy over the AppUser without messing with the AspNetUser. And actually, I use Automatic Migrations for my IdentityContext (the context that derives from IdentityDbContext):
public sealed class IdentityMigrationConfiguration : DbMigrationsConfiguration<IdentityContext>
{
public IdentityMigrationConfiguration()
{
AutomaticMigrationsEnabled = true;
AutomaticMigrationDataLossAllowed = false;
}
protected override void Seed(IdentityContext context)
{
}
}
This approach also has the benefit of avoiding to have your n-tier cross-cutting entities inheriting from AspNetIdentity classes.
By Changing The DbContext As Below;
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<OneToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<ManyToManyCascadeDeleteConvention>();
}
Just adding in OnModelCreating method call to base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder); and it becomes fine. I am using EF6.
Special Thanks To #The Senator
For those who use ASP.NET Identity 2.1 and have changed the primary key from the default string to either int or Guid, if you're still getting
EntityType 'xxxxUserLogin' has no key defined. Define the key for this EntityType.
EntityType 'xxxxUserRole' has no key defined. Define the key for this EntityType.
you probably just forgot to specify the new key type on IdentityDbContext:
public class AppIdentityDbContext : IdentityDbContext<
AppUser, AppRole, int, AppUserLogin, AppUserRole, AppUserClaim>
{
public AppIdentityDbContext()
: base("MY_CONNECTION_STRING")
{
}
......
}
If you just have
public class AppIdentityDbContext : IdentityDbContext
{
......
}
or even
public class AppIdentityDbContext : IdentityDbContext<AppUser>
{
......
}
you will get that 'no key defined' error when you are trying to add migrations or update the database.
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
//foreach (var relationship in modelBuilder.Model.GetEntityTypes().SelectMany(e => e.GetForeignKeys()))
// relationship.DeleteBehavior = DeleteBehavior.Restrict;
modelBuilder.Entity<User>().ToTable("Users");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityRole<string>>().ToTable("Roles");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUserToken<string>>().ToTable("UserTokens");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUserClaim<string>>().ToTable("UserClaims");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUserLogin<string>>().ToTable("UserLogins");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityRoleClaim<string>>().ToTable("RoleClaims");
modelBuilder.Entity<IdentityUserRole<string>>().ToTable("UserRoles");
}
}
My issue was similar - I had a new table i was creating that ahd to tie in to the identity users. After reading the above answers, realized it had to do with IsdentityUser and the inherited properites. I already had Identity set up as its own Context, so to avoid inherently tying the two together, rather than using the related user table as a true EF property, I set up a non-mapped property with the query to get the related entities. (DataManager is set up to retrieve the current context in which OtherEntity exists.)
[Table("UserOtherEntity")]
public partial class UserOtherEntity
{
public Guid UserOtherEntityId { get; set; }
[Required]
[StringLength(128)]
public string UserId { get; set; }
[Required]
public Guid OtherEntityId { get; set; }
public virtual OtherEntity OtherEntity { get; set; }
}
public partial class UserOtherEntity : DataManager
{
public static IEnumerable<OtherEntity> GetOtherEntitiesByUserId(string userId)
{
return Connect2Context.UserOtherEntities.Where(ue => ue.UserId == userId).Select(ue => ue.OtherEntity);
}
}
public partial class ApplicationUser : IdentityUser
{
public async Task<ClaimsIdentity> GenerateUserIdentityAsync(UserManager<ApplicationUser> manager)
{
// Note the authenticationType must match the one defined in CookieAuthenticationOptions.AuthenticationType
var userIdentity = await manager.CreateIdentityAsync(this, DefaultAuthenticationTypes.ApplicationCookie);
// Add custom user claims here
return userIdentity;
}
[NotMapped]
public IEnumerable<OtherEntity> OtherEntities
{
get
{
return UserOtherEntities.GetOtherEntitiesByUserId(this.Id);
}
}
}

Create a log everytime When methods in an interface class are called

I want to update a log file(txt) everytime when methods in a an interface class are called?
Is there any way to do this other than writing code in every method to create log?
Here's my 30 mins. you'll have to implement the logging code somewhere so you have to create another abstraction for your code. thus an abstract class is needed. i think. this is very quick and dirty.
public interface IService<T>
{
List<T> GetAll();
bool Add(T obj);
}
then you'll need the abstract class where you'll need to implement your logging routine
public abstract class Service<T> : IService<T>
{
private void log()
{
/// TODO : do log routine here
}
public bool Add(T obj)
{
try
{
log();
return AddWithLogging(obj);
}
finally
{
log();
}
}
public List<T> GetAll()
{
try
{
log();
return GetAllWithLog();
}
finally
{
log();
}
}
protected abstract List<T> GetAllWithLog();
protected abstract bool AddWithLogging(T obj);
}
as for your concrete classes
public class EmployeeService : Service<Employee>
{
protected override List<Employee> GetAllWithLog()
{
return new List<Employee>() { new Employee() { Id = 0, Name = "test" } };
}
protected override bool AddWithLogging(Employee obj)
{
/// TODO : do add logic here
return true;
}
}
public class CompanyService : Service<Company>
{
protected override List<Company> GetAllWithLog()
{
return new List<Company>() { new Company() { Id = 0, Name = "test" } };
}
protected override bool AddWithLogging(Company obj)
{
/// TODO : do add logic here
return true;
}
}
public class Employee
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public string Name { get; set;}
}
public class Company
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
then on your implementation you can just..
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IService<Employee> employee = new EmployeeService();
List<Employee> employees = employee.GetAll();
foreach (var item in employees)
{
Console.WriteLine(item.Name);
}
IService<Company> company = new CompanyService();
List<Company> companies = company.GetAll();
foreach (var item in companies)
{
Console.WriteLine(item.Name);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
hope this helps!
I think you would have to use Aspect Oriented Programming to achieve that. Read http://www.sharpcrafters.com/aop.net
I think you meant class (instead of interface)
Two options I can think of:
Implementing INotifyPropertyChanged which is in lines of writing code in every method
or
to adopt on of the AOP frameworks in the article http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/AOP_Frameworks_Rating.aspx if that is not a major leap

Validation with State Pattern for Multi-Page Forms in ASP.NET

I'm trying to implement the state pattern for a multi-page registration form. The data on each page will be accumulated and stored in a session object.
Should validation (including service layer calls to the DB) occur on the page level or inside each state class? In other words, should the concrete implementation of IState be concerned with the validation or should it be given a fully populated and valid object? See "EmptyFormState" class below:
namespace Example
{
public class Registrar
{
private readonly IState formEmptyState;
private readonly IState baseInformationComplete;
public RegistrarSessionData RegistrarSessionData { get; set;}
public Registrar()
{
RegistrarSessionData = new RegistrarSessionData();
formEmptyState = new EmptyFormState(this);
baseInformationComplete = new BasicInfoCompleteState(this);
State = formEmptyState;
}
public IState State { get; set; }
public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data)
{
State.SubmitData(data);
}
public void ProceedToNextStep()
{
State.ProceedToNextStep();
}
}
//actual data stored in the session
//to be populated by page
public class RegistrarSessionData
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
//will include values of all 4 forms
}
//State Interface
public interface IState
{
void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data);
void ProceedToNextStep();
}
//Concrete implementation of IState
//Beginning state - no data
public class EmptyFormState : IState
{
private readonly Registrar registrar;
public EmptyFormState(Registrar registrar)
{
this.registrar = registrar;
}
public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data)
{
//Should Validation occur here?
//Should each state object contain a validation class? (IValidator ?)
//Should this throw an exception?
}
public void ProceedToNextStep()
{
registrar.State = new BasicInfoCompleteState(registrar);
}
}
//Next step, will have 4 in total
public class BasicInfoCompleteState : IState
{
private readonly Registrar registrar;
public BasicInfoCompleteState(Registrar registrar)
{
this.registrar = registrar;
}
public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data)
{
//etc
}
public void ProceedToNextStep()
{
//etc
}
}
}
I prefer to validate at both the state (collection) level AND the final commit. In general, I prefer to validate as soon as possible as part of a good user experience. From a data validation/protection level I prefer to validate at the final save/commit level as well just in case something snuck through, protection against generall trickery, or (more likely) a different route to the save/commit point in the future.

asp.net WebForms emulation of the state in the stateless env

I'm looking for an elegant way to have AppContext configured right and here is it:
public class AppContext : IAppContext
{
public AppContext()
{
Application = new AppStorage(); // app scoped hashtable
Local = new LocalStorage(); // current thread scoped hashtable
Session = new SessionStorage(); // session for some reasons hashtable
}
public CultureInfo Culture { get; set; } // session scoped
public UserProfile AuthProfile { get; set; } // session scoped
public IStorage Application { get; private set; } // application
public IStorage Session { get; private set; } // session
public IStorage Local { get; private set; } // current thread
public IStorage WcfSession { get; private set; } // wcf session
private ISecurityWriter SecurityWriter; // session scoped
private ISecurityContext SecurityContext; // session scoped
/// 1. START WEB CONTEXT
/// 2. START WCF CONTEXT
}
currently I am balancing between
a)
public class Global : HttpApplication
{
public static AppContext Context;
protected void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Context = new AppContext();
}
}
but I don't like the ideea to have
Global.Context.Sesstion.Set<Order>(theOrderInstance);
b) and the addition to AppContext following lines
public class AppContext{
private static AppContext instance;
public AppContext Instance
{
get{
if(instance == null)
instance = new AppContext();
return instance;
}
}
this also is not nice looking
AppContext.Instance.Session.Set<Order>(theOrderInstance);
QUESTION: I like the idea of having
AppContext.Session.Set<Order>(theOrderInstance);
any toughs how to achieve this ?
something OSS and relevant for this topic would be greatly appreciated
have fun :)
How about this way?
protected AppContext Instance
{
get{
if(instance == null)
instance = new AppContext();
return instance;
}
}
public IStorage Session
{
get{
return Instance.Session;
}
}
look here:
public static class AppContextExtensions
{
public static AppContext Context(this Page page)
{
return AppContext.Instance;
}
}
usage
this.Context().Session.Set<Order>(theOrderInstance)
and i'm happy with it :)

Resources