is there is anyway to map/register singleton, using the unity configuration file, and map it to an interface while the singleton doesn't expose any public constructor?
Please advice,
Thanks
You have use a class that exposes an internal (as a minimum) constructor if you want unity to create an instance of it. On the other hand you could write a container extension for unity that can use private constructors via reflection.
Another alternative is to write a custom class that has a public constructor and also implements the interface. It then talks to your singleton, something like:
public class SingletonCreator: ISingleton
{
public int SomeMethodInsideInterface()
{
return RealSingleton.Instance.SomeMethodInsideInterface();
}
I would prefer the extension method though, something like this code (below) should get you into the private constructor. Then you would use this container extension in you config in order to tell unity to use your extension.
ConstructorInfo[] constructors = typeToConstruct..GetConstructors(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic)
Related
I'm trying to follow a tutorial on using the unit of work and repository pattern on MSDN but I've stumbled at the below:
private UnitOfWork unitOfWork = new UnitOfWork();
"This code adds a class variable for the UnitOfWork class. (If you were using interfaces here, you wouldn't initialize the variable here; instead, you'd implement a pattern of two constructors"
Basically, I need to call my UnitOfWork class in my LogController without actually using the above code as I'm using an interface? How is this possible? I'm not sure what it means by 'two constructors'.
Any advice would be appreiciated
In your class you define
Private IUnitOfWork _unitOfWork = null;
And you have one constructor which accepts an IUnitOfWork so the caller can pass in an implementation:
Public MyClass (IUnitOfWork unitOfWork) {
_unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
}
And you have another which does not, but knows how to go and find which implementation to create. Either it can use a default implementation, or it can go to some config file you've written to define which type to use, etc.
Within the MyClass you still call _unitOfWork.whateverMethod()
Below is my controller. My program generates an output, based on a form input. Across the project, there are multiple input forms, that generate the output object. So, the essential flow is the same. So I want a single multi-action controller that does all of that.
Challenges:
1. The service classes change. Although all services implement the same interface, and controller calls the same interface method.
2. The input objects change. Although the input objects do not have any methods other than setters, and getters. So I let them all implement an empty interface.
Questions:
How do I change the qualifier, based on the path. Can I use path variables?
Suppose the path has this value -> singleton. Then my corresponding bean names would be singletonService and singletonInput. I want to make a constant class that has stores this mapping information. So, can I call that from inside the qualifier, using some Spring Expression Language? Example, instead of Qualifier(variablePathName) -> Qualifier(getQualifierName['variablePathName']) Something like that?
Please also clarify the theory behind this. From what I understand, beans are created, autowired before the Request are mapped... Does this mean that what I'm trying to achieve here is simply not possible. In that case, would you suggest making Controller-service pairs for handling each request, with basically the same code? But I feel there must be some way to achieve what I'm trying...
Code:
#Cotroller
#RequestMapping(value="/generate/{path}")
public class TestController {
#Autowired
#Qualifier(......)
private IService service;
#Autowired
#Qualifier(......)
IUserInput userInput;
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.POST)
//Some handler method
}
You're right in that the autowiring is all done once up front (point 3). You wouldn't be able to achieve what you want using fields annotated #Autowired and #Qualifier - as these fields would always reference the same bean instance.
You may be better to ask Spring for the particular service bean by name - based on the path variable. You could do it within a single controller instance. For example:
#Cotroller
#RequestMapping(value="/generate/{path}")
public class TestController {
#Autowired
private ApplicationContext applicationContext;
#RequestMapping(method = RequestMethod.POST)
public String someHandlerMethod(#PathVariable String path) {
IService service = (IService) applicationContext.getBean(path + "Service");
IUserInput userInput = (IUserInput) applicationContext.getBean(path + "UserInput");
// Logic using path specific IService and IUserInput
}
}
I am learning asp.net mvc3. one example I found online is to show me how to use IOC.
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private IHelloService _service;
public HomeController():this(new HelloService())
{}
public HomeController(IHelloService service)
{
_service = service;
}
}
there are two constructors in this example. I understand the second one. the first one I understand what that for, but to me, it seems like extra code, you will never need it.
can someone please explain to me whats the point to add the first constructor.
public HomeController():this(new HelloService())
{}
When the MVC Framework instantiates a controller, it uses the default (parameter-less) constructor.
By default, you are injecting a concrete IHelloService implementation. This will be used when a user navigates to the action.
Unit Tests would use the overload and pass in the mock IHelloService implementation rather than calling the default constructor.
It can be useful if you don't use a dependency injection framework that injects this for you. In this way you never have to manually inject the object, the object will handle that by itself.
The second constructor is, of course, useful to inject custom objects when unit testing.
Normally one would need to do this:
IFoo foo = new Foo();
IBar bar = new Bar(foo);
When your constructor creates a default object you can just do this:
IBar bar = new Bar();
Bar will then create a Foo and inject it into itself.
I've got an object declared and instantiated in my Flex application's singular MXML file:
public var CDN:CDNClass = new CDNClass;
I would like to access this same CDN object (and its public methods and properties) in another class declared in a separate .as file as such:
package my.vp
{
import my.media.CDNClass;
public class SyncConnectorManager
{
private function syncMessageReceived(p_evt:SyncSwfEvent):void
{
switch (p_evt.data.msgNm)
{
case "startStream" :
// Play a stream
CDN.parsePlayList(p_evt.data.msgVal);
break;
But when I try to access the public method parsePlayList in the CDN object in a method in the class defined in the .as file, I get the following error:
Access of undefined property CDN
The reason I want to do this is to break up the logic of my application into multiple AS files and have minimal MXML files, probably only one.
Thanks - any help is much appreciated. Perhaps my OOD/OOP thinking is not correct here?
IT depends on your class architecture. For your code to work, the CDNClass instance must be defined and implemented inside your SyncConnectorManager.
Generally, you can always call down into components, but should never call up
One option is to pass the instance ofCDNClass to a variable inside SyncConnectorManager. Add this variable to your SyncConnectionManager class:
public var CDN:CDNClass = new CDNClass;
And at some point do this:
syncConnectorManagerInstance.CDN = CDN;
That way both classes will have access to the same CDN instance and can call methods on it.
Yes, your OOP thinking is not correct here. You should take in mind differences between classes and instances. This line declares a filed in a current class and initiates it with an instance:
public var CDN:CDNClass = new CDNClass;
So current instance of your MXML class (you can think about it as usual AS class with some other notation) has public field. To operate with CDN instance you need something from the following:
Read the value of CDN (as far as it is public) from the instance of your MXML class. You need some reference to it for that.
The instance of your MXML class can have a reference to the instance of SyncConnectorManager and SyncConnectorManager should have a way to inject the value of CDN there. Something like:
Your class:
package my.vp
{
import my.media.CDNClass;
public class SyncConnectorManager
{
private var CDN:CDNClass;
public function SyncConnectorManager(CDN:CDNClass)
{
this.CDN = CDN;
}
private function syncMessageReceived(p_evt:SyncSwfEvent):void
{
switch (p_evt.data.msgNm)
{
case "startStream" :
// Play a stream
CDN.parsePlayList(p_evt.data.msgVal);
break;
In your case SyncConnectorManager class hasn't CDN declared (the problem of the compiler error you mentioned) and instantiated (the problem of NPE even if you just declare field).
As the bottom line I can suggest you to follow ActionScript naming and coding conventions to talk other people and team members about your code :)
I have a doubt,.... How would you create a Singleton class in Flex...
Is there any convention like the class name should eb Singleton or it should extend any other class.
How many Singleton class can a project have?
Can anyone say the real time usage of a Singleton class?
I am planning to keep my components label texts in a Singleton class... Is it a good approach.
Can of worms asking about singletons!
There are a few different options about creating singletons mainly due to AS3 not having private constructors. Here's the pattern we use.
package com.foo.bar {
public class Blah {
private static var instance : Blah;
public function Blah( enforcer : SingletonEnforcer ) {}
public static function getInstance() : Blah {
if (!instance) {
instance = new Blah( new SingletonEnforcer() );
}
return instance;
}
...
}
}
class SingletonEnforcer{}
Note that the SingletonEnforcer class is internal so can only be used by the Blah class (effectively). No-one can directly instantiate the class, they have to go through the getInstance() function.
hope I'm not hitting dead horses here :)
(edit: ahh, I'm just repeating phils link)
Gregors singleton implementation does not protect against invoking the constructor with a null value, as in:
var b:Blah = new Blah(null);
You will still have only 1 instance, but invoking the constructor is still possible with the consequences that follows.
If you absolutely must enforce the singleton, the constructor should make sure that the enforcer parameter isn't null.
public function Blah( enforcer : SingletonEnforcer ) {
if(!enforcer){
throw new Error("whoops!");
}
}
You should also be concerned about ApplicationDomain when loading swf files. External swf files that uses the same definitions, may have multiple singleton instances (1 in each separate applicationdomain) if you do not specify that the swf file must be loaded into the existing applicationdomain.
This means that Blah.getInstance() in AAA.swf is not the same instance as Blah.getinstance() in BBB.swf, if AAA.swf loads BBB.swf without a LoaderContext instance that tells the plugin to load BBB.swf into the same ApplicationDomain as AAA.swf
First you can reference a previous question to find out how to create a singleton class. You can find more info from a Yakov Fain presentation as well.
Second question, your project can technology have as may singleton class as you see fit but it will only create 1 instance of each. For example, in the cairngorm architecture you have 3 main singletons: controller, service and model. The number of actual class can very depending on your project.
Finally, A real world solutions would be. You have 2 components that need to talk to each other but you don't want them to know the other exists. Meaning sometimes the components are there and sometimes they are not...so you need them to be loosely coupled. you can uses singletons to pass the data from one component to the other with out "talking" to them directly.
Using singletons is a good approach if you need to pass data around your application from component to component and would like to decouple them from each other.
package com.foo.bar
{
public class MySingleton
{
private static var _instance:MySingleton = new MySingleton;
private var _myName:String;
public static function get instance():MySingleton
{
return _instance;
}
public function set myName(value:String):void
{
_myName = value;
}
public function get myName():String
{
return _myName;
}
}
}
Notice the absence of a constructor here.
Hello you could check out the following of a Flex Singleton Class example on http://www.how-to-code.com/flex/flex-design-patterns/flex-singleton-class.html