Search Results

Search found 11996 results on 480 pages for 'dependency properties'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 10/480 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Instance management with Dependency injection (DI)

    - by Sven
    Hello I'm trying to understand how DI exactly works. I'm currently using Windsor as DI container. I use this to load my services dynamically in code without direct reference. But I have change behaviour and want to know a bit more on the instance mgmt using DI. I have a web app projct, here is a WCF service using PerCall as instancemode. This means, new instance/call. In this WCF I call a service (loaded via DI) and this service calls another service (again loaded via DI). The WCF is a new instance in the appdomain, but what about the services. They are also new instances? Is this DI container shared among all WCF instances and are the services in this container also single instances? Can anyone clarify?

    Read the article

  • StructureMap resolve dependency through injection instead of service location

    - by Chris Marisic
    In my project I register many ISerializers implementations with the assembly scanner. FWIW this is the code that registers my ISerializers Scan(scanner => { scanner.AssemblyContainingType<ISerializer>(); scanner.AddAllTypesOf<ISerializer>().NameBy(type => type.Name); scanner.WithDefaultConventions(); }); Which then correctly registers ISerializer (...ISerializer) Scoped as: Transient JsonSerializer Configured Instance of ...JsonSerializer BsonSerializer Configured Instance of ...BsonSerializer And so forth. Currently the only way I've been able to figure out how to resolve the serializer I want is to hardcode a service location call with jsonSerializer = ObjectFactory.GetNamedInstance<ISerializer>("JsonSerializer"); Now I know in my class that I specifically want the jsonSerializer so is there a way to configure a rule or similar that says for ISerializer's to connect the named instance based on the property name? So that I could have MySomeClass(ISerializer jsonSerializer, ....) And StructureMap correctly resolve this scenario? Or am I approaching this wrong and perhaps I should just register the concrete type that implements ISerializer and then just specifically use MySomeClass(JsonSerializer jsonSerializer, ....) for something along these lines with the concrete class?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection Question - ASP.NET

    - by Paul
    I'm starting a web application that contains the following projects: Booking.Web Booking.Services Booking.DataObjects Booking.Data I'm using the repository pattern in my data project only. All services will be the same, no matter what happens. However, if a customer wants to use Access, it will use a different data repository than if the customer wants to use SQL Server. I have StructureMap, and want to be able to do the following: Web project is unaffected. It's a web forms application that will only know about the services project and the dataobjects project. When a service is called, it will use StructureMap (by looking up the bootstrapper.cs file) to see which data repository to use. An example of a services class is the error logging class: public class ErrorLog : IErrorLog { ILogging logger; public ErrorLog() { } public ErrorLog(ILogging logger) { this.logger = logger; } public void AddToLog(string errorMessage) { try { AddToDatabaseLog(errorMessage); } catch (Exception ex) { AddToFileLog(ex.Message); } finally { AddToFileLog(errorMessage); } } private void AddToDatabaseLog(string errorMessage) { ErrorObject error = new ErrorObject { ErrorDateTime = DateTime.Now, ErrorMessage = errorMessage }; logger.Insert(error); } private void AddToFileLog(string errorMessage) { // TODO: Take this value from the web.config instead of hard coding it TextWriter writer = new StreamWriter(@"E:\Work\Booking\Booking\Booking.Web\Logs\ErrorLog.txt", true); writer.WriteLine(DateTime.Now.ToString() + " ---------- " + errorMessage); writer.Close(); } } I want to be able to call this service from my web project, without defining which repository to use for the data access. My boostrapper.cs file in the services project is defined as: public class Bootstrapper { public static void ConfigureStructureMap() { ObjectFactory.Initialize(x => { x.AddRegistry(new ServiceRegistry()); } ); } public class ServiceRegistry : Registry { protected override void configure() { ForRequestedType<IErrorLog>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<Booking.Services.Logging.ErrorLog>(); ForRequestedType<ILogging>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SqlServerLoggingProvider>(); } } } What else do I need to get this to work? When I defined a test, the ILogger object was null. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Is testability alone justification for dependency injection?

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    The advantages of DI, as far as I am aware, are: Reduced Dependencies More Reusable Code More Testable Code More Readable Code Say I have a repository, OrderRepository, which acts as a repository for an Order object generated through a Linq to Sql dbml. I can't make my orders repository generic as it performs mapping between the Linq Order entity and my own Order POCO domain class. Since the OrderRepository by necessity is dependent on a specific Linq to Sql DataContext, parameter passing of the DataContext can't really be said to make the code reuseable or reduce dependencies in any meaningful way. It also makes the code harder to read, as to instantiate the repository I now need to write new OrdersRepository(new MyLinqDataContext()) which additionally is contrary to the main purpose of the repository, that being to abstract/hide the existence of the DataContext from consuming code. So in general I think this would be a pretty horrible design, but it would give the benefit of facilitating unit testing. Is this enough justification? Or is there a third way? I'd be very interested in hearing opinions.

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection: Scoping by region (Guice, Spring, Whatever)

    - by Itay
    Here's a simplified version of my needs. I have a program where every B object has its own C and D object, injected through Guice. In addition an A object is injected into every C and D objects. What I want: that for each B object, its C and D objects will be injected with the same A object. Specifically, I want the output of the program (below) to be: Created C0 with [A0] Created D0 with [A0] Created B0 with [C0, D0] Created C1 with [A1] Created D1 with [A1] Created B1 with [C1, D1] Where it currently produces the following output: Created C0 with [A0] Created D0 with [A1] <-- Should be A0 Created B0 with [C0, D0] Created C1 with [A2] <-- Should be A1 Created D1 with [A3] <-- Should be A1 Created B1 with [C1, D1] I am expecting DI containers to allow this kind of customization but so far I had no luck in finding a solution. Below is my Guice-based code, but a Spring-based (or other DI containers-based) solution is welcome. import java.util.Arrays; import com.google.inject.*; public class Main { public static class Super { private static Map<Class<?>,Integer> map = new HashMap<Class<?>,Integer>(); private Integer value; public Super(Object... args) { value = map.get(getClass()); value = value == null ? 0 : ++value; map.put(getClass(), value); if(args.length > 0) System.out.println("Created " + this + " with " + Arrays.toString(args)); } @Override public final String toString() { return "" + getClass().getSimpleName().charAt(0) + value; } } public interface A { } public static class AImpl extends Super implements A { } public interface B { } public static class BImpl extends Super implements B { @Inject public BImpl(C c, D d) { super(c,d); } } public interface C { } public static class CImpl extends Super implements C { @Inject public CImpl(A a) { super(a); } } public interface D { } public static class DImpl extends Super implements D { @Inject public DImpl(A a) { super(a); } } public static class MyModule extends AbstractModule { @Override protected void configure() { bind(A.class).to(AImpl.class); bind(B.class).to(BImpl.class); bind(C.class).to(CImpl.class); bind(D.class).to(DImpl.class); } } public static void main(String[] args) { Injector inj = Guice.createInjector(new MyModule()); inj.getInstance(B.class); inj.getInstance(B.class); } }

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection and Unit of Work pattern

    - by sunwukung
    I have a dilemma. I've used DI (read: factory) to provide core components for a homebrew ORM. The container provides database connections, DAO's,Mappers and their resultant Domain Objects on request. Here's a basic outline of the Mappers and Domain Object classes class Mapper{ public function __constructor($DAO){ $this->DAO = $DAO; } public function load($id){ if(isset(Monitor::members[$id]){ return Monitor::members[$id]; $values = $this->DAO->selectStmt($id); //field mapping process omitted for brevity $Object = new Object($values); return $Object; } } class User(){ public function setName($string){ $this->name = $string; //mark modified by means fair or foul } } The ORM also contains a class (Monitor) based on the Unit of Work pattern i.e. class Monitor(){ private static array modified; private static array dirty; public function markClean($class); public function markModified($class); } The ORM class itself simply co-ordinates resources extracted from the DI container. So, to instantiate a new User object: $Container = new DI_Container; $ORM = new ORM($Container); $User = $ORM->load('user',1); //at this point the container instantiates a mapper class //and passes a database connection to it via the constructor //the mapper then takes the second argument and loads the user with that id $User->setName('Rumpelstiltskin');//at this point, User must mark itself as "modified" My question is this. At the point when a user sets values on a Domain Object class, I need to mark the class as "dirty" in the Monitor class. I have one of three options as I can see it 1: Pass an instance of the Monitor class to the Domain Object. I noticed this gets marked as recursive in FirePHP - i.e. $this-Monitor-markModified($this) 2: Instantiate the Monitor directly in the Domain Object - does this break DI? 3: Make the Monitor methods static, and call them from inside the Domain Object - this breaks DI too doesn't it? What would be your recommended course of action (other than use an existing ORM, I'm doing this for fun...)

    Read the article

  • Spring properties (property-placeholder) autowiring

    - by peperg
    I have in my applicationContext.xml <context:property-placeholder location="classpath*:*.properties" /> <bean id="clientPreferencesManager" class="pl.bildpresse.bildchat2.business.ClientPreferencesManager" > <property name="clientApiUrl" value="${clientapi.url}" /> </bean> Is it possible to do the same by autowire ? Something like : @Autowired @Qualifier("${clientapi.url}") public void setClientApiUrl(String clientApiUrl) { this.clientApiUrl = clientApiUrl; }

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: How to maintain multiple configurations?

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow, Lets assume we've build a system with a DI framework which is working quite fine. This system currently uses JMS to "talk" with other systems not maintained by us. The majority of our customers like the JMS approach and uses it according to our specification. The component which does all the messaging is injected with Spring into the rest of the application. Now we got the case that one customer cannot implement the JMS solution and want to use another messaging technology. Thats not a problem because we can simply implement a messaging service using this technology and inject it in the rest of the application. But how are we supposed to handle the deployment and maintenance of the configuration? Since the application uses Spring i could imagine to check in all the configurations i have for this application and the system administrator could start the application and passing the name of the DI XML file to specify which configuration should be loaded. But... it just don't feel right. Are there any solutions for such cases available? What are the best-practices you use? I could even imagine more complex scenarios which do not contain only one service substitution... Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • Is dependency injection possible for JSP beans?

    - by kazanaki
    This may be a long shot question.. I am working on an application that is based on JSP/Javascript only (without a Web framework!) Is there a way to have depencency injection for JSP beans? By jsp beans I mean beans defined like this <jsp:useBean id="cart" scope="session" class="session.Carts" /> Is there a way/library/hack to intercept the bean creation so that when "cart" is referenced for the first time, some some of injection takes place? Can I define somewhere a "listener" for JSP beans (like you can do for JSF beans for example)? I am free to do anything I want in the back-end, but I cannot add a web framework in the front-end (Don't ask!)

    Read the article

  • NHibernate on WCF Dependency Injection

    - by Diego Dias
    Hi, I would like of inject a wrapper of my sessionfactory in my wcf service, but my service is in other server and I want set nhibernate in my site asp.net. I have a interface as: public interface ISessionBuilder { ISession Current{get;}; void Close(); } public class SessionBuilder : ISessionBuilder { static SessionBuilder() { Initialize(); } public ISession Current{ get; private set; } public void Close() { //aqui eu fecho a session } private static void Initialize() { //aqui eu configuro o NHibernate } } I want to be able of set SessionBuilder in the site asp.net and inject this implementation in my wcf Service where I have my repositories which will consume SessionBuilder to query my database. Anyone have some sugestion?

    Read the article

  • Circular dependency with generics

    - by devoured elysium
    I have defined the following interface: public interface IStateSpace<State, Action> where State : IState where Action : IAction<State, Action> // <-- this is the line that bothers me { void SetValueAt(State state, Action action); Action GetValueAt(State state); } Basically, an IStateSpace interface should be something like a chess board, and in each position of the chess board you have a set of possible movements to do. Those movements here are called IActions. I have defined this interface this way so I can accommodate for different implementations: I can then define concrete classes that implement 2D matrix, 3D matrix, graphs, etc. public interface IAction<State, Action> { IStateSpace<State, Action> StateSpace { get; } } An IAction, would be to move up(this is, if in (2, 2) move to (2, 1)), move down, etc. Now, I'll want that each action has access to a StateSpace so it can do some checking logic. Is this implementation correct? Or is this a bad case of a circular dependence? If yes, how to accomplish "the same" in a different way? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why do so many wpf controls implement CLR properties instead of dependency properties ?

    - by msfanboy
    Hello, is it because the controls programmers are lazy, too hard to implement or not knowledgeable? Wether they are custom controls from 3rd party vendors or Microsoft itself, very much controls have often clr properties instead of DP. Result is I can not bind to them and is wpf not all about binding? :/ My next side question would be, why do so many wpf controls offer visual parts but they are not member of the visual tree ? see wpf datagrid columns, headers... What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Dependency propery Binding Problem

    - by deepak
    i have attached my sample project here, http://cid-08ec3041618e8ee4.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.SharedFavorites/dep2.rar Can any one look and tell whats wrong in that, everythng working well, but i cant bind the value in text box, when u click the button u can see the passed value to usercontrol in message box, but i cant bind that value in text box. Why????

    Read the article

  • Ninject: Syntax for dependency arguments?

    - by Rosarch
    I have a class with a public constructor: public MasterEngine(IInputReader inputReader) { this.inputReader = inputReader; graphicsDeviceManager = new GraphicsDeviceManager(this); Components.Add(new GamerServicesComponent(this)); } How can I inject dependencies like graphicsDeviceManager and new GamerServicesComponent while still supplying the argument this?

    Read the article

  • XNA and Ninject: Syntax for dependency arguments?

    - by Rosarch
    I have a class with a public constructor: public MasterEngine(IInputReader inputReader) { this.inputReader = inputReader; graphicsDeviceManager = new GraphicsDeviceManager(this); Components.Add(new GamerServicesComponent(this)); } How can I inject dependencies like graphicsDeviceManager and new GamerServicesComponent while still supplying the argument this?

    Read the article

  • Windsore dependency

    - by jack
    I have a class with contructure like this public UserRepository(IBlockRepository blockRepos) { } and again, I have another class with the constructure function like this public BlockRepository(IUserRepository userRepo) { } this cause the Windsor error : Castle.MicroKernel.Handlers.HandlerException: Can't create component 'UserRepository' as it has dependencies to be satisfied. UserRepository is waiting for the following dependencies I don't know how to fix it , please help me. Many thanks

    Read the article

  • Ninject: How to resolve this dependency?

    - by Rosarch
    I have a class with a public constructor: public MasterEngine(IInputReader inputReader) { this.inputReader = inputReader; graphicsDeviceManager = new GraphicsDeviceManager(this); Components.Add(new GamerServicesComponent(this)); } How can I inject dependencies like graphicsDeviceManager and new GamerServicesComponent while still supplying the argument this?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: How to pass DB around?

    - by Stephane
    Edit: This is a conceptual question first and foremost. I can make applications work without knowing this, but I'm trying to learn the concept. I've seen lots of videos with related classes and that makes sense, but when it comes to classes wrapping around other classes, I can't seem to grasp where things should be instantiated/passed around. =-=-=-=-=-=-= Question: Let's say I have a simple page that loads data from a table, manipulates the result and displays it. Simple. I'm going to use '=' for instantiating a class and '-' for passing a class in using constructor injection. It seems to me that the database has to be passed from one end of the application to the other which doesn't seem right. Here's how I would do it if I wanted to separate concerns: index =>Controller =>Model Layer =>Database =>DAO->Database I have this rule in my head that says I'm not supposed to create objects inside other objects. So what do I do with the Database? Or even the Model for that matter? I'm obviously missing something so basic about this. I would love a simplified example so that I can move forward in my code. I feel really hamstrung by this.

    Read the article

  • Internal typedef and circular dependency

    - by bcr
    I have two classes whose functions take typedefed pointers to eachother as return values and parameters. I.e.: class Segment; class Location : public Fwk::NamedInterface { public: // ===== Class Typedefs ===== typedef Fwk::Ptr<Location const> PtrConst; typedef Fwk::Ptr<Location> Ptr; // ===== Class Typedefs End ===== void segmentIs(Segment::Ptr seg); /* ... */ } and class Location; class Segment : public Fwk::NamedInterface { public: // ===== Class Typedefs ===== typedef Fwk::Ptr<Segment const> PtrConst; typedef Fwk::Ptr<Segment> Ptr; // ===== Class Typedefs End ===== void locationIs(Location::Ptr seg); /* ... */ } This understandably generated linker errors...which the forward declarations of the respective classes don't fix. How can I forward declare the Ptr and PtrConst typedefs while keeping these typedefs internal to the class (i.e. I would like to write Location::Ptr to refer to the location pointer type)? Thanks folks!

    Read the article

  • Why C# doesn't implement indexed properties ?

    - by Thomas Levesque
    I know, I know... Eric Lippert's answer to this kind of question is usually something like "because it wasn't worth the cost of designing, implementing, testing and documenting it". But still, I'd like a better explanation... I was reading this blog post about new C# 4 features, and in the section about COM Interop, the following part caught my attention : By the way, this code uses one more new feature: indexed properties (take a closer look at those square brackets after Range.) But this feature is available only for COM interop; you cannot create your own indexed properties in C# 4.0. OK, but why ? I already knew and regretted that it wasn't possible to create indexed properties in C#, but this sentence made me think again about it. I can see several good reasons to implement it : the CLR supports it (for instance, PropertyInfo.GetValue has an index parameter), so it's a pity we can't take advantage of it in C# it is supported for COM interop, as shown in the article (using dynamic dispatch) it is implemented in VB.NET it is already possible to create indexers, i.e. to apply an index to the object itself, so it would probably be no big deal to extend the idea to properties, keeping the same syntax and just replacing this with a property name It would allow to write that kind of things : public class Foo { private string[] _values = new string[3]; public string Values[int index] { get { return _values[index]; } set { _values[index] = value; } } } Currently the only workaround that I know is to create an inner class (ValuesCollection for instance) that implements an indexer, and change the Values property so that it returns an instance of that inner class. This is very easy to do, but annoying... So perhaps the compiler could do it for us ! An option would be to generate an inner class that implements the indexer, and expose it through a public generic interface : // interface defined in the namespace System public interface IIndexer<TIndex, TValue> { TValue this[TIndex index] { get; set; } } public class Foo { private string[] _values = new string[3]; private class <>c__DisplayClass1 : IIndexer<int, string> { private Foo _foo; public <>c__DisplayClass1(Foo foo) { _foo = foo; } public string this[int index] { get { return _foo._values[index]; } set { _foo._values[index] = value; } } } private IIndexer<int, string> <>f__valuesIndexer; public IIndexer<int, string> Values { get { if (<>f__valuesIndexer == null) <>f__valuesIndexer = new <>c__DisplayClass1(this); return <>f__valuesIndexer; } } } But of course, in that case the property would actually return a IIndexer<int, string>, and wouldn't really be an indexed property... It would be better to generate a real CLR indexed property. What do you think ? Would you like to see this feature in C# ? If not, why ?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >