Search Results

Search found 33012 results on 1321 pages for 'method injection'.

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 4/1321 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Dependency injection: At what point am I allowed to create a new object?

    - by Gaz_Edge
    I am refactoring a PHP application, and I am trying to do has much dependency injection (DI) as possible. I feel like I've got a good grasp of how it works, and I can certainly see my classes becoming a lot leaner and more robust. I'm refactoring so that I can inject a dependency rather than create a new object within the class, but at some point I am going to have to create some objects, that is, use the dreaded new keyword. The problem I have now run into is at what point can I actually create new objects? It's looking like I'll end up at a top level class, creating loads of new objects as there is no where else to go. This feels wrong. I've read some blogs that use factory classes to create all the objects, and then you inject the factory into other classes. You can then call the factory methods, and the factory creates the new object for you. My concern with doing this is now my factory classes are going to be a new free-for-all! I guess this may be OK as they are factory classes, but are there some rules to stick to when using a factory pattern and DI, or am I going way off the mark here?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: where to store dependencies used by only one method?

    - by simoneL
    I developing a project integrated with Dependency Injection (just for reference, I'm using Unity). The problem is that I have some Manager classes with several methods and in many cases I have dependencies used only in one method. public class UserManager : IUserManager { private UserRepository UserRepository {get;set;} private TeamRepository TeamRepository {get;set;} private CacheRepository CacheRepository {get;set;} private WorkgroupRepository WorkgroupRepository {get;set;} public UserManager(UserRepository userRepository, TeamRepository teamRepository, CacheRepository cacheRepository , WorkgroupRepository workgroupRepository, ... // Many other dependencies ) { UserRepository = userRepository; TeamRepository = teamRepository; CacheRepository = cacheRepository ; WorkgroupRepository = workgroupRepository; ... // Setting the remaining dependencies } public void GetLatestUser(){ // Uses only UserRepository } public void GetUsersByTeam(int teamID){ // Uses only TeamRepository } public void GetUserHistory(){ // Uses only CacheRepository } public void GetUsersByWorkgroup(int workgroupID){ // Uses only workgroupRepository } } The UserManager is instantiated in this way: DependencyFactory<IUserManager>(); Note: DependencyFactory is just a wrapper to simplify the access to the UnityContainer Is it OK to have classes like that in the example? Is there a better way to implement avoiding to instantiate all the unnecessary dependencies?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: What point am I allowed to create a new object?

    - by Gaz_Edge
    I am refactoring a php application and I am trying to do has much dependency injection as possible. I feel like I've got a good grasp of how it works, and I can certainly see my classes becoming a lot leaner and more robust. Im refactoring so that I can inject a dependency rather than create a new object within the class, but at some point I am going to have to create some objects i.e. use the dreaded new keyword. The problem I have now run into is at what point can I actually create new objects? Its looking like I'll end up at a top level class, creating loads of new objects as there is no where else to go. This feels wrong. I've read some blogs that use factory classes to create all the objects, and then you inject the factory into other classes. You can then call the factory methods, and the factory creates the new object for you. My concern with doing this is now my factory classes are going to be a new free-for-all! I guess this may be ok as they are factory classes, but are there some rules to stick to when using factory pattern and DI, or am I going way off the mark here.

    Read the article

  • Rhino Mocks, Dependency Injection, and Separation of Concerns

    - by whatispunk
    I am new to mocking and dependency injection and need some guidance. My application is using a typical N-Tier architecture where the BLL references the DAL, and the UI references the BLL but not the DAL. Pretty straight forward. Lets say, for example, I have the following classes: class MyDataAccess : IMyDataAccess {} class MyBusinessLogic {} Each exists in a separate assembly. I want to mock MyDataAccess in the tests for MyBusinessLogic. So I added a constructor to the MyBusinessLogic class to take an IMyDataAccess parameter for the dependency injection. But now when I try to create an instance of MyBusinessLogic on the UI layer it requires a reference to the DAL. I thought I could define a default constructor on MyBusinessLogic to set a default IMyDataAccess implementation, but not only does this seem like a codesmell it didn't actually solve the problem. I'd still have a public constructor with IMyDataAccess in the signature. So the UI layer still requires a reference to the DAL in order to compile. One possible solution I am toying with is to create an internal constructor for MyBusinessLogic with the IMyDataAccess parameter. Then I can use an Accessor from the test project to call the constructor. But there's still that smell. What is the common solution here. I must just be doing something wrong. How could I improve the architecture?

    Read the article

  • Static method , Abstract method , Interface method comparision ?

    - by programmerist
    When i choose these methods? i can not decide which one i must prefer or when will i use one of them?which one give best performance? First Type Usage public abstract class _AccessorForSQL { public virtual bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType); public virtual bool Update(); public virtual bool Delete(); public virtual DataSet Select(); } class GenAccessor : _AccessorForSQL { DataSet ds; DataTable dt; public override bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType) { } public override bool Update() { return true; } public override bool Delete() { return true; } public override DataSet Select() { DataSet dst = new DataSet(); return dst; } Second Type Usage Also i can write it below codes: public class GenAccessor { public Static bool Save() { } public Static bool Update() { } public Static bool Delete() { } } Third Type Usage Also i can write it below codes: public interface IAccessorForSQL { bool Delete(); bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType); DataSet Select(); bool Update(); } public class _AccessorForSQL : IAccessorForSQL { private DataSet ds; private DataTable dt; public virtual bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType) { } } } I can use first one below usage: GenAccessor gen = New GenAccessor(); gen.Save(); I can use second one below usage: GenAccessor.Save(); Which one do you prefer? When will i use them? which time i need override method ? which time i need static method?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection and decoupling of software layers

    - by cs31415
    I am trying to implement Dependency Injection to make my app tester friendly. I have a rather basic doubt. Data layer uses SqlConnection object to connect to a SQL server database. SqlConnection object is a dependency for data access layer. In accordance with the laws of dependency injection, we must not new() dependent objects, but rather accept them through constructor arguments. Not wanting to upset the DI gods, I dutifully create a constructor in my DAL that takes in SqlConnection. Business layer calls DAL. Business layer must therefore, pass in SqlConnection. Presentation layer calls Business layer. Hence it too, must pass in SqlConnection to business layer. This is great for class isolation and testability. But didn't we just couple the UI and Business layers to a specific implementation of the data layer which happens to use a relational database? Why do the Presentation and Business layers need to know that the underlying data store is SQL? What if the app needs to support multiple data sources other than SQL server (such as XML files, Comma delimited files etc.) Furthermore, what if I add another object upon which my data layer is dependent on (say, a second database). Now, I have to modify the upper layers to pass in this new object. How can I avoid this merry-go-round and reap all the benefits of DI without the pain?

    Read the article

  • Simplifying Testing through design considerations while utilizing dependency injection

    - by Adam Driscoll
    We are a few months into a green-field project to rework the Logic and Business layers of our product. By utilizing MEF (dependency injection) we have achieved high levels of code coverage and I believe that we have a pretty solid product. As we have been working through some of the more complex logic I have found it increasingly difficult to unit test. We are utilizing the CompositionContainer to query for types required by these complex algorithms. My unit tests are sometimes difficult to follow due to the lengthy mock object setup process that must take place, just right, to allow for certain circumstances to be verified. My unit tests often take me longer to write than the code that I'm trying to test. I realize this is not only an issue with dependency injection but with design as a whole. Is poor method design or lack of composition to blame for my overly complex tests? I've tried base classing tests, creating commonly used mock objects and ensuring that I utilize the container as much as possible to ease this issue but my tests always end up quite complex and hard to debug. What are some tips that you've seen to keep such tests concise, readable, and effective?

    Read the article

  • Serializing Configurations for a Dependency Injection / Inversion of Control

    - by Joshua Starner
    I've been researching Dependency Injection and Inversion of Control practices lately in an effort to improve the architecture of our application framework and I can't seem to find a good answer to this question. It's very likely that I have my terminology confused, mixed up, or that I'm just naive to the concept right now, so any links or clarification would be appreciated. Many examples of DI and IoC containers don't illustrate how the container will connect things together when you have a "library" of possible "plugins", or how to "serialize" a given configuration. (From what I've read about MEF, having multiple declarations of [Export] for the same type will not work if your object only requires 1 [Import]). Maybe that's a different pattern or I'm blinded by my current way of thinking. Here's some code for an example reference: public abstract class Engine { } public class FastEngine : Engine { } public class MediumEngine : Engine { } public class SlowEngine : Engine { } public class Car { public Car(Engine e) { engine = e; } private Engine engine; } This post talks about "Fine-grained context" where 2 instances of the same object need different implementations of the "Engine" class: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2176833/ioc-resolve-vs-constructor-injection Is there a good framework that helps you configure or serialize a configuration to achieve something like this without hard coding it or hand-rolling the code to do this? public class Application { public void Go() { Car c1 = new Car(new FastEngine()); Car c2 = new Car(new SlowEngine()); } } Sample XML: <XML> <Cars> <Car name="c1" engine="FastEngine" /> <Car name="c2" engine="SlowEngine" /> </Cars> </XML>

    Read the article

  • PHP -- automatic SQL injection protection?

    - by ashgromnies
    I took over maintenance of a PHP app recently and I'm not super familiar with PHP but some of the things I've been seeing on the site are making me nervous that it could be vulnerable to a SQL injection attack. For example, see how this code for logging into the administrative section works: $password = md5(HASH_SALT . $_POST['loginPass']); $query = "SELECT * FROM `administrators` WHERE `active`='1' AND `email`='{$_POST['loginEmail']}' AND `password`='{$password}'"; $userInfo = db_fetch_array(db_query($query)); if($userInfo['id']) { $_SESSION['adminLoggedIn'] = true; // user is logged in, other junk happens here, not important The creators of the site made a special db_query method and db_fetch_array method, shown here: function db_query($qstring,$print=0) { return @mysql(DB_NAME,$qstring); } function db_fetch_array($qhandle) { return @mysql_fetch_array($qhandle); } Now, this makes me think I should be able to do some sort of SQL injection attack with an email address like: ' OR 'x'='x' LIMIT 1; and some random password. When I use that on the command line, I get an administrative user back, but when I try it in the application, I get an invalid username/password error, like I should. Could there be some sort of global PHP configuration they have enabled to block these attacks? Where would that be configured? Here is the PHP --version information: # php --version PHP 5.2.12 (cli) (built: Feb 28 2010 15:59:21) Copyright (c) 1997-2009 The PHP Group Zend Engine v2.2.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2009 Zend Technologies with the ionCube PHP Loader v3.3.14, Copyright (c) 2002-2010, by ionCube Ltd., and with Zend Optimizer v3.3.9, Copyright (c) 1998-2009, by Zend Technologies

    Read the article

  • The Template Method Design Pattern using C# .Net

    - by nijhawan.saurabh
    First of all I'll just put this pattern in context and describe its intent as in the GOF book:   Template Method: Define the skeleton of an algorithm in an operation, deferring some steps to Subclasses. Template Method lets subclasses redefine certain steps of an algorithm without changing the Algorithm's Structure.    Usage: When you are certain about the High Level steps involved in an Algorithm/Work flow you can use the Template Pattern which allows the Base Class to define the Sequence of the Steps but permits the Sub classes to alter the implementation of any/all steps.   Example in the .Net framework: The most common example is the Asp.Net Page Life Cycle. The Page Life Cycle has a few methods which are called in a sequence but we have the liberty to modify the functionality of any of the methods by overriding them.   Sample implementation of Template Method Pattern:   Let's see the class diagram first:            Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standard;}   And here goes the code:EmailBase.cs     1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     public abstract class EmailBase    10     {    11     12         public bool SendEmail()    13         {    14             if (CheckEmailAddress() == true) // Method1 in the sequence    15             {    16                 if (ValidateMessage() == true) // Method2 in the sequence    17                 {    18                     if (SendMail() == true) // Method3 in the sequence    19                     {    20                         return true;    21                     }    22                     else    23                     {    24                         return false;    25                     }    26     27                 }    28                 else    29                 {    30                     return false;    31                 }    32     33             }    34             else    35             {    36                 return false;    37     38             }    39     40     41         }    42     43         protected abstract bool CheckEmailAddress();    44         protected abstract bool ValidateMessage();    45         protected abstract bool SendMail();    46     47     48     }    49 }    50    EmailYahoo.cs      1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     public class EmailYahoo:EmailBase    10     {    11     12         protected override bool CheckEmailAddress()    13         {    14             Console.WriteLine("Checking Email Address : YahooEmail");    15             return true;    16         }    17         protected override bool ValidateMessage()    18         {    19             Console.WriteLine("Validating Email Message : YahooEmail");    20             return true;    21         }    22     23     24         protected override bool SendMail()    25         {    26             Console.WriteLine("Semding Email : YahooEmail");    27             return true;    28         }    29     30     31     }    32 }    33   EmailGoogle.cs      1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     public class EmailGoogle:EmailBase    10     {    11     12         protected override bool CheckEmailAddress()    13         {    14             Console.WriteLine("Checking Email Address : GoogleEmail");    15             return true;    16         }    17         protected override bool ValidateMessage()    18         {    19             Console.WriteLine("Validating Email Message : GoogleEmail");    20             return true;    21         }    22     23     24         protected override bool SendMail()    25         {    26             Console.WriteLine("Semding Email : GoogleEmail");    27             return true;    28         }    29     30     31     }    32 }    33   Program.cs      1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     class Program    10     {    11         static void Main(string[] args)    12         {    13             Console.WriteLine("Please choose an Email Account to send an Email:");    14             Console.WriteLine("Choose 1 for Google");    15             Console.WriteLine("Choose 2 for Yahoo");    16             string choice = Console.ReadLine();    17     18             if (choice == "1")    19             {    20                 EmailBase email = new EmailGoogle(); // Rather than newing it up here, you may use a factory to do so.    21                 email.SendEmail();    22     23             }    24             if (choice == "2")    25             {    26                 EmailBase email = new EmailYahoo(); // Rather than newing it up here, you may use a factory to do so.    27                 email.SendEmail();    28             }    29         }    30     }    31 }    32    Final Words: It's very obvious that why the Template Method Pattern is a popular pattern, everything at last revolves around Algorithms and if you are clear with the steps involved it makes real sense to delegate the duty of implementing the step's functionality to the sub classes. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standard;}

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection in constructor, method or just use a static class instead?

    - by gaetanm
    What is the best between: $dispatcher = new Dispatcher($request); $dispatcher->dispatch(); and $dispatcher = new Dispatcher(); $dispatcher->dispatch($request); or even Dispatcher::dispatch($request); Knowing that only one method of this class uses the $request instance. I naturally tend to the last solution because the class have no other states, but by I feel that it may not be the best OOP solution.

    Read the article

  • Concatenating Date Values - SQL Injection

    - by Kyle Rozendo
    Hi All, We currently receive parameters of values as VARCHAR's, and then build a date from them. I am wanting to confirm that the method would stop the possibility of SQL injection from this statement: select CONVERT(datetime, '2010' + '-' + '02' + '-' + '21' + ' ' + '15:11:38.990') Another note is that the actual parameters being passed through to the stored proc are length bound at (4, 2, 2, 10, 12) in correspondence to the above. Thanks a ton, Kyle

    Read the article

  • Ajax method within a added method in jQuery validator

    - by nikospkrk
    Hi, I'm kind of stuck with this pretty simple (I'm sure) jQuery/Javascript issue. Here's the code : jQuery.validator.addMethod("emailExists", function(value, element, param) { var email = value || ''; var valid = 0; $.ajax({ type: "POST", url: param, data: "email=" + email, success: function(msg) { if (msg != '' && msg) { valid = 0; } else { valid = 1; } } }); return valid; }, "* Email address already registered, please login."); This function is called where a user type his email address in a registration form, and everything seems to work perfectly, except that my valid variable returned isn't updated, whereas when I use an alert box it is properly done! It looks like it return the value before the AJAX is done, any idea? Cheers, Nicolas.

    Read the article

  • How would I go about prevent DLL injection.

    - by wowus
    So the other day, I saw this: http://www.edgeofnowhere.cc/viewtopic.php?p=2483118 and it goes over three different methods of DLL injection. How would I prevent these from the process? Or at a bare minimum, how do I prevent the first one? I was thinking maybe a Ring 0 driver might be the only way to stop all three, but I'd like to see what the community thinks.

    Read the article

  • Prevent SQL Injection in Dynamic column names

    - by Mr Shoubs
    I can't get away without writing some dynamic sql conditions in a part of my system (using Postgres). My question is how best to avoid SQL Injection with the method I am currently using. EDIT (Reasoning): There are many of columns in a number of tables (a number which grows (only) and is maintained elsewhere). I need a method of allowing the user to decide which (predefined) column they want to query (and if necessary apply string functions to). The query itself is far too complex for the user to write themselves, nor do they have access to the db. There are 1000's of users with varying requirements and I need to remain as flexible as possible - I shouldn't have to revisit the code unless the main query needs to change - Also, there is no way of knowing what conditions the user will need to use. I have objects (received via web service) that generates a condition (the generation method is below - it isn't perfect yet) for some large sql queries. The _FieldName is user editable (parameter name was, but it didn't need to be) and I am worried it could be an attack vector. I put double quotes (see quoted identifier) around the field name in an attempt to sanitize the string, this way it can never be a key word. I could also look up the field name against a list of fields, but it would be difficult to maintain on a timely basis. Unfortunately the user must enter the condition criteria, I am sure there must be more I can add to the sanatize method? and does quoting the column name make it safe? (my limited testing seems to think so). an example built condition would be "AND upper(brandloaded.make) like 'O%' and upper(brandloaded.make) not like 'OTHERBRAND'" ... Any help or suggestions are appreciated. Public Function GetCondition() As String Dim sb As New Text.StringBuilder 'put quote around the table name in an attempt to prevent some sql injection 'http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/static/sql-syntax-lexical.html sb.AppendFormat(" {0} ""{1}"" ", _LogicOperator.ToString, _FieldName) Select Case _ConditionOperator Case ConditionOperatorOptions.Equals sb.Append(" = ") ... End Select sb.AppendFormat(" {0} ", Me.UniqueParameterName) 'for parameter Return Me.Sanitize(sb) End Function Private Function Sanitize(ByVal sb As Text.StringBuilder) As String 'compare against a similar blacklist mentioned here: http://forums.asp.net/t/1254125.aspx sb.Replace(";", "") sb.Replace("'", "") sb.Replace("\", "") sb.Replace(Chr(8), "") Return sb.ToString End Function Public ReadOnly Property UniqueParameterName() As String Get Return String.Concat(":" _UniqueIdentifier) End Get End Property

    Read the article

  • Does this PHP function protect against SQL injection?

    - by George Edison
    I have this function I'm using and I want to be sure that it fully protects against SQL injection attacks: function MakeSafeForQuery($string) { // replace all of the quote // chars by their escape sequence $ret = str_replace("\\","\\\\",$string); $ret = str_replace("'","\\'",$ret); $ret = str_replace("\"","\\\"",$ret); return $ret; } Am I missing anything serious?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection wcf

    - by Diego Dias
    I want inject a implementation of my Interface in the WCF but I want initialize my container of Dependency Injection in the Client of the WCF. So I can have a different implementation for each client of the my service. Help me please.

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: I don't get where to start!

    - by Andy
    I have several articles about Dependency Injection, and I can see the benefits, especially when it comes to unit testing. The units can me loosely coupled, and mocking of dependencies can be made. The trouble is - I just don't get where to start. Consider this snippet below of (much edited for the purpose of this post) code that I have. I am instantiating a Plc object from the main form, and passing in a communications mode via the Connect method. In it's present form it becomes hard to test, because I can't isolate the Plc from the CommsChannel to unit test it. (Can I?) The class depends on using a CommsChannel object, but I am only passing in a mode that is used to create this channel within the Plc itself. To use dependancy injection, I should really pass in an already created CommsChannel (via an 'ICommsChannel' interface perhaps) to the Connect method, or maybe via the Plc constructor. Is that right? But then that would mean creating the CommsChannel in my main form first, and this doesn't seem right either, because it feels like everything will come back to the base layer of the main form, where everything begins. Somehow it feels like I am missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. Where do you start? You have to create an instance of something somewhere, but I'm struggling to understand where that should be. public class Plc() { public bool Connect(CommsMode commsMode) { bool success = false; // Create new comms channel. this._commsChannel = this.GetCommsChannel(commsMode); // Attempt connection success = this._commsChannel.Connect(); return this._connected; } private CommsChannel GetCommsChannel(CommsMode mode) { CommsChannel channel; switch (mode) { case CommsMode.RS232: channel = new SerialCommsChannel( SerialCommsSettings.Default.ComPort, SerialCommsSettings.Default.BaudRate, SerialCommsSettings.Default.DataBits, SerialCommsSettings.Default.Parity, SerialCommsSettings.Default.StopBits); break; case CommsMode.Tcp: channel = new TcpCommsChannel( TCPCommsSettings.Default.IP_Address, TCPCommsSettings.Default.Port); break; default: // Throw unknown comms channel exception. } return channel; } }

    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 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >