When is it best to use static functions in ASP.NET? - asp.net

I have been wondering, when to use static functions, and when not to in ASP.NET?
What are the advantages and disadvantages in using them, in various aspects like performance, following good practices etc (and many more, whichever you feel is relevant).

Cons:
threading issues (static functions don't require an instance to be called on, so it is easy to invoke them from different parts of the code and if they read/write to a shared state this state might be corrupted in a multi-threaded environment such as ASP.NET)
difficult to unit test (as static functions don't require an object instance, constructor injection is impossible meaning that the only way to inject dependencies is by passing them as arguments to the function itself)
Pros:
performance (this is questionable - in most cases performance gains will be completely negligible compared to other parts of the code)

There are definitely situations where static is the appropriate solution, as with any application. Any time you have some object that ought to live at the application scope, and not at the request scope, it should be static and you should use static methods to access and manipulate it.
As an example, here's a snippet of code I wrote recently for an ASP.NET application, which is essentially a serializer cache. Serializers are expensive to create and we can reuse the same one per type for as long as our application lives, so there's no need to waste time in each request thread for them:
(Note: this has been stripped down to demonstrate the static aspects)
public class XmlSerializerUtility
{
private static Dictionary<Type, XmlSerializer> serializers = new Dictionary<Type, XmlSerializer>();
private static object sync = new object();
public static T Deserialize<T>(string input)
{
XmlSerializer xs = GetSerializer(typeof(T));
using (StringReader sr = new StringReader(input))
{
return (T)xs.Deserialize(sr);
}
}
public static XmlDocument Serialize(object input)
{
XmlDocument doc = new XmlDocument();
XmlSerializer xs = GetSerializer(input.GetType());
using (MemoryStream stream = new MemoryStream())
{
xs.Serialize(stream, input);
stream.Position = 0;
doc.Load(stream);
}
return doc;
}
private static XmlSerializer GetSerializer(Type type)
{
lock (sync)
{
XmlSerializer xs = null;
if (!serializers.ContainsKey(type))
{
xs = new XmlSerializer(type);
serializers.Add(type, xs);
}
else
{
xs = serializers[type];
}
return xs;
}
}
}

The only major disadvantage to a static method is that it's almost entirely non-unit testable. Users of the method have to bind to the concrete method and cannot bind to an abstraction, thus making faking or mocking difficult if not impossible.
This may or may not be an issue, depending on the code, however.
The other thing you want to watch out for is that static data is universal across all requests to the server.

Related

Best practice for managing life time of business layer, data layer, datacontext instance asp.net website

Our Asp.net web application is using LINQ-to-SQL (Stored Procs are dragged on dropped on dbml file to create classes) and 3 tier architecture is similar to the one below. I have just created rough methods to give reader proper idea so that he can answer well.
namespace MyDataLayer
{
public class MyDataAccess
{
// global instance of datacontext
MyDataModelDataContext myDB = new MyDataModelDataContext(); (#1)
public void GetUserIDByUsername(string sUserName, ref int iUserID)
{
int? iUserIDout = 0;
// this will make call to SP in SQL DB
myDB.USP_RP_GETUSERIDBYUSERNAME(sUserName, "", ref iUserIDout);
iUserID = (int)iUserIDout;
}
public List<USP_APP_USERDETAILSResult> GetUserDetails(string sUserIDs)
{
// this will make call to SP in SQL DB
return myDB.USP_APP_USERDETAILS(sUserIDs).ToList();
}
...
... // several CRUD methods
}
}
namespace MyBusinessLayer
{
public class SiteUser
{
// global DataAccess instance
MyDataLayer.MyDataAccess myDA = new MyDataAccess(); (#2)
public void GetUserIDByUsername(string sUserName, ref int iUserID)
{
myDA.GetUserIDByUsername(sUserName, ref iUserID);
}
public List<USP_APP_USERDETAILSResult> GetUserDetails(string sUserIDs)
{
// this will make call to SP in SQL DB
return myDA.GetUserDetails(sUserIDs);
}
...
... // several CRUD methods
}
}
namespace MyWebApplication
{
public class BaseWebPage : System.Web.UI.Page
{
// static business layer instance
public static MyBusinessLayer.SiteUser UserBLInstance = new SiteUser(); (#3)
...
}
}
// Index.aspx.cs code fragment
namespace MyWebApplication
{
public class Index : BaseWebPage
{
public void PopulateUserDropDown()
{
// using static business layer instance declared in BaseWebPage
List<USP_APP_USERDETAILSResult> listUsers = UserBLInstance.GetUserDetails("1,2,3");
// do databinding and so on ...
}
...
}
}
Questions
(Ref.#1) Is having global datacontext in DataAccess good approach? yes/no why?
If your suggestion is having datacontext per request what is the best practice for that
(Ref.#2) Is having global DataAccess instance in BusinessLayer good approach? yes/no why?
If your suggestion is having DataAccess instance per request what is the best practice for that
(Ref. #3) Is static business layer instance declared in BaseWebPage good approach? yes/no why?
Best approach to manage life time of BL instance and DL instance in general
We are facing periodic InvalidCastException on production server for a very simple method which works fine if I restart my application from IIS. When this problem is there we can access the same database from SQL Management Studio and can execute same SP
Our prime suspect about this issue is poor DataContext management and I have read many articles on net about managing life time of DataContext but I am now confused about various approach.
That's why I have elaborated my questions so that many in same situation can get clear idea about problem/answer.
(Ref.#1) Is having global datacontext in DataAccess good approach? yes/no why?
Yes.
However, creating it manually inside the dataaccess class means that you can't control the lifetime of the datacontext. Instead, make it then a constructor parameter so that it is injected into the data access
(Ref.#2) Is having global DataAccess instance in BusinessLayer good approach? yes/no why?
Yes. But refer to 1. - make it injectable via the constructor.
(Ref. #3) Is static business layer instance declared in BaseWebPage good approach? yes/no why?
No. Avoid static for complex objects as usually such objects has non-trivial state. And this is when a lot of nasty issues can happen if you share such objects in a concurrent environment.
To summarize.
public class DataAccess {
public DataAccess( DataContext context ) { ... }
}
public class BusinessLayer {
public BusinessLayer( DataAccess access ) { ... }
}
public class MyPage : Page {
...
var ctx = TheDataContext.Current;
var bl = new BusinessLayer( new DataAccess( ctx ) );
}
with data context shared in a request scope:
public partial class TheDataContext {
// Allow the datacontext to be shared in a request-scope
public static TheDataContext Current {
get {
if ( HttpContext.Current.Items["context"] == null )
HttpContext.Current.Items.Add( "context", new TheDataContext() );
return (TheDataContext)HttpContext.Current.Items["context"];
}
}
}
In your sample - your MyDataLayer usually has name Repository. Definitely it is good to have DataContext instance in Repositories and do not try to use them outside. So, only in repositories you will have dependency on Linq-To-Sql, which means that you can create Stub objects for these Repositories and really easy test other parts of your application.
Definitely you should Dispose your Data Context instances, DataContext contains too many objects to keep them alive and let GC to kill them. As you can see you don't create any transaction objects when you are working with DataContextes, so I think that LinqToSql based on idea that you should have everything per transaction (of course you can also try to handle transaction manually, but do you really want to do this?). Disposing datacontextes in methods of Repository is a good approach, because this will not allow you to use cool feature of all ORM frameworks: Lazy Load. If you will try to use Lazy Load - you will like it, but usually it is just one of possible performance degradation cause.
Definitely your should use DataContextes for shorter or the same time of Request, don't try to use LongSession (it is when you trying to keep DataContext for more than one Http Request, it is just pain in ass, nothing else, if you want to read about this, just try to read couple articles about Long Running Session in Hibernate, I tried with nHibernate - don't do this at home ;) ).

Testing a class library that is using different databases based on Session

I have an ASP.NET website project that until recent had all code in App_Code folder. It uses Entity Framework 4 as ORM. Application is divided into three "sections" (let's say one for each customer). Each section has it's own database (but same schema). This is due to performance reasons, databases are over 10GB each with millions of rows.
Each time a context object is created a Session variable which holds section ID is called and proprietary connection string is chosen for this context.
It looks like this (following are members of static Connection class):
public static MyEntities GetEntityContext()
{
if (HttpContext.Current.Session["section"] == null)
{
HttpContext.Current.Response.Redirect("~/Login.aspx");
}
var context = new MyEntities(GetEntityConnectionStringForSection((int)HttpContext.Current.Session["section"]);
return context;
}
private static string GetEntityConnectionStringForSection(int section)
{
switch (section)
{
case 1: return ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["entity_1"].ConnectionString;
case 2: return ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["entity_2"].ConnectionString;
case 3: return ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["entity_3"].ConnectionString;
default: return ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["entity_1"].ConnectionString;
}
}
It works very good and also handles situation when session timed out everytime any data access is performed.
Recently as I needed to share DB classes among two websites I moved all DB classes to separate class library and referenced System.Web library which I know is bad practice, but it's working.
Now the next step is to include unit and module tests which as I read is very difficult or impossible when using HttpContext in library, so I want to get rid of System.Web references. What is the best practice for this situation?
I think I can't just pass HttpContext to GetEntityContext() as it is also called from within my entity classes. Although this probably can be refactored. So maybe this is where I should go?
I also wondered if is it possible to somehow pass current section ID to this whole library? It cannot be just static property because as far as I understand it would be common for all users using the application. This should be user-specific.
Reassuming the objective is to make automated testing possible without loosing transparent Connection String choosing and session timeouts handling.
If I do something fundamentally wrong at this stage please also let me know. I can look again at this question tomorrow morning (8.00 am UTC) so please don't be discouraged by my silence till then.
EDIT:
Example of usage of Connection class in the library:
public partial class Store
{
public static List<Store> GetSpecialStores()
{
using (var context = Connection.GetEntityContext())
{
return context.Stores.Where(qq => qq.Type > 0).OrderBy(qq => qq.Code).ToList();
}
}
}
You can declare interface IContextProvider inside your library ans use it to retrieve context. Something like:
public interface IContextProvider
{
MyEntities GetEntityContext();
}
This will make your library testable. In your web project you can inject IContextProvider implementation into your library.
public class WebContextProvider : IContextProvider
{
public MyEntities GetEntityContext()
{
if (HttpContext.Current.Session["section"] == null)
HttpContext.Current.Response.Redirect("~/Login.aspx");
int sectionId = (int)HttpContext.Current.Session["section"];
string connectionString = GetEntityConnectionStringForSection(sectionId);
var context = new MyEntities(connectionString);
return context;
}
private static string GetEntityConnectionStringForSection(int section)
{
switch (section)
{
case 1: return ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["entity_1"].ConnectionString;
case 2: return ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["entity_2"].ConnectionString;
case 3: return ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["entity_3"].ConnectionString;
default: return ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["entity_1"].ConnectionString;
}
}
}
Inject this interface to repositories or other data access classes.
public partial class Store
{
private IContextProvider contextProvider;
public Store(IContextProvider contextProvider)
{
this.contextProvider = contextProvider;
}
public List<Store> GetSpecialStores()
{
using (var context = contextProvider.GetEntityContext())
{
return context.Stores.Where(qq => qq.Type > 0).OrderBy(qq => qq.Code).ToList();
}
}
}

Test ControllerFactory (pre-start initialization stage)

I want to write a unit test that verifies my route registration and ControllerFactory so that given a specific URL, a specific controller will be created. Something like this:
Assert.UrlMapsToController("~/Home/Index",typeof(HomeController));
I've modified code taken from the book "Pro ASP.NET MVC 3 Framework", and it seems it would be perfect except that the ControllerFactory.CreateController() call throws an InvalidOperationException and says This method cannot be called during the application's pre-start initialization stage.
So then I downloaded the MVC source code and debugged into it, looking for the source of the problem. It originates from the ControllerFactory looking for all referenced assemblies - so that it can locate potential controllers. Somewhere in the CreateController call-stack, the specific trouble-maker call is this:
internal sealed class BuildManagerWrapper : IBuildManager {
//...
ICollection IBuildManager.GetReferencedAssemblies() {
// This bails with InvalidOperationException with the message
// "This method cannot be called during the application's pre-start
// initialization stage."
return BuildManager.GetReferencedAssemblies();
}
//...
}
I found a SO commentary on this. I still wonder if there is something that can be manually initialized to make the above code happy. Anyone?
But in the absence of that...I can't help notice that the invocation comes from an implementation of IBuildManager. I explored the possibility of injecting my own IBuildManager, but I ran into the following problems:
IBuildManager is marked internal, so I need some other authorized derivation from it. It turns out that the assembly System.Web.Mvc.Test has a class called MockBuildManager, designed for test scenarios, which is perfect!!! This leads to the second problem.
The MVC distributable, near as I can tell, does not come with the System.Web.Mvc.Test assembly (DOH!).
Even if the MVC distributable did come with the System.Web.Mvc.Test assembly, having an instance of MockBuildManager is only half the solution. It is also necessary to feed that instance into the DefaultControllerFactory. Unfortunately the property setter to accomplish this is also marked internal (DOH!).
In short, unless I find another way to "initialize" the MVC framework, my options now are to either:
COMPLETELY duplicate the source code for DefaultControllerFactory and its dependencies, so that I can bypass the original GetReferencedAssemblies() issue. (ugh!)
COMPLETELY replace the MVC distributable with my own build of MVC, based on the MVC source code - with just a couple internal modifiers removed. (double ugh!)
Incidentally, I know that the MvcContrib "TestHelper" has the appearance of accomplishing my goal, but I think it is merely using reflection to find the controller - rather than using the actual IControllerFactory to retrieve a controller type / instance.
A big reason why I want this test capability is that I have made a custom controller factory, based on DefaultControllerFactory, whose behavior I want to verify.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish here. If it's just testing your route setup; you're way better off just testing THAT instead of hacking your way into internals. 1st rule of TDD: only test the code you wrote (and in this case that's the routing setup, not the actual route resolving technique done by MVC).
There are tons of posts/blogs about testing a route setup (just google for 'mvc test route'). It all comes down to mocking a request in a httpcontext and calling GetRouteData.
If you really need some ninja skills to mock the buildmanager: there's a way around internal interfaces, which I use for (LinqPad) experimental tests. Most .net assemblies nowadays have the InternalsVisibleToAttribute set, most likely pointing to another signed test assembly. By scanning the target assembly for this attribute and creating an assembly on the fly that matches the name (and the public key token) you can easily access internals.
Mind you that I personally would not use this technique in production test code; but it's a nice way to isolate some complex ideas.
void Main()
{
var bm = BuildManagerMockBase.CreateMock<MyBuildManager>();
bm.FileExists("IsCool?").Dump();
}
public class MyBuildManager : BuildManagerMockBase
{
public override bool FileExists(string virtualPath) { return true; }
}
public abstract class BuildManagerMockBase
{
public static T CreateMock<T>()
where T : BuildManagerMockBase
{
// Locate the mvc assembly
Assembly mvcAssembly = Assembly.GetAssembly(typeof(Controller));
// Get the type of the buildmanager interface
var buildManagerInterface = mvcAssembly.GetType("System.Web.Mvc.IBuildManager",true);
// Locate the "internals visible to" attribute and create a public key token that matches the one specified.
var internalsVisisbleTo = mvcAssembly.GetCustomAttributes(typeof (InternalsVisibleToAttribute), true).FirstOrDefault() as InternalsVisibleToAttribute;
var publicKeyString = internalsVisisbleTo.AssemblyName.Split("=".ToCharArray())[1];
var publicKey = ToBytes(publicKeyString);
// Create a fake System.Web.Mvc.Test assembly with the public key token set
AssemblyName assemblyName = new AssemblyName();
assemblyName.Name = "System.Web.Mvc.Test";
assemblyName.SetPublicKey(publicKey);
// Get the domain of our current thread to host the new fake assembly
var domain = Thread.GetDomain();
var assemblyBuilder = domain.DefineDynamicAssembly(assemblyName, AssemblyBuilderAccess.RunAndSave);
moduleBuilder = assemblyBuilder.DefineDynamicModule("System.Web.Mvc.Test", "System.Web.Mvc.Test.dll");
AppDomain currentDom = domain;
currentDom.TypeResolve += ResolveEvent;
// Create a new type that inherits from the provided generic and implements the IBuildManager interface
var typeBuilder = moduleBuilder.DefineType("Cheat", TypeAttributes.NotPublic | TypeAttributes.Class, typeof(T), new Type[] { buildManagerInterface });
Type cheatType = typeBuilder.CreateType();
// Magic!
var ret = Activator.CreateInstance(cheatType) as T;
return ret;
}
private static byte[] ToBytes(string str)
{
List<Byte> bytes = new List<Byte>();
while(str.Length > 0)
{
var bstr = str.Substring(0, 2);
bytes.Add(Convert.ToByte(bstr, 16));
str = str.Substring(2);
}
return bytes.ToArray();
}
private static ModuleBuilder moduleBuilder;
private static Assembly ResolveEvent(Object sender, ResolveEventArgs args)
{
return moduleBuilder.Assembly;
}
public virtual bool FileExists(string virtualPath) { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
public virtual Type GetCompiledType(string virtualPath) { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
public virtual ICollection GetReferencedAssemblies() { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
public virtual Stream ReadCachedFile(string fileName) { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
public virtual Stream CreateCachedFile(string fileName) { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}

NUnit Rollback After Test

I am pretty new to NUnit (and automated testing in general). I have recently done some Ruby On Rails work and noticed that in my test suite, when I create objects (such as a new user) and commit them during course of the suite, they are never committed to the database so that I can run the test over and over and not worry about that user already existing.
I am now trying to accomplish the same thing in NUnit, but I am not quite sure how to go about doing it. Do I create a transaction in the Setup and Teardown blocks? Thanks.
Why would you talk to the database during unit-tests? This makes your unit-test to integration-tests by default. Instead, create wrappers for all database communication, and stub/mock it during unit-tests. Then you don't have to worry about database state before and after.
Now, if you are not willing to that level of refactoring: The problem with transactions is that you need an open connection. So, if your method targeted for testing handles all communication on its own, it is really difficult to inject a transaction that you can create at setup and roll back at teardown.
Maybe you can use this. It is ugly, but perhaps it can work for you:
namespace SqlServerHandling
{
[TestFixture]
public sealed class TestTransactionRollBacks
{
private string _connectionString = "Data Source = XXXDB; ; Initial Catalog = XXX; User Id = BLABLA; Password = BLABLA";
private SqlConnection _connection;
private SqlTransaction _transaction;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
_connection = new SqlConnection(_connectionString);
_transaction = _connection.BeginTransaction();
}
[TearDown]
public void TearDown()
{
_transaction.Rollback();
}
[Test]
public void Test()
{
Foo foo = new Foo(_connection);
object foo.Bar();
}
}
internal class Foo
{
private readonly SqlConnection _connection;
object someObject = new object();
public Foo(SqlConnection connection)
{
_connection = connection;
}
public object Bar()
{
//Do your Stuff
return someObject;
}
}
I agree with Morten's answer, but you might want to look at this very old MSDN Magazine article on the subject: Know Thy Code: Simplify Data Layer Unit Testing using Enterprise Services
I use SQLite for unit tests, using NHibenate. Even if you're not using NHibernate it should be possible to do. SQLite has an in memory mode, where you can create a database in memory and persist data there. It is fast, works well, and you can simply throw away and recreate the schema for each test or fixture as you see fit.
You can see the example from Ayende's blog for an overview of how its done. He is using NHibernate, but the concept should work with other ORM or a straight DAL as well.

How to pass unit of work container into constructor of repository using dependency injection

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.

Resources