Dependency Injection

Managing your NHibernate Sessions

Note: you can find a more recent post on this concept here.

I was working on my northwind sample application (which i'll post about as soon as i get something that's worth showing) and i was struggling to find a clean way to manage my NHibernate sessions. I wanted a way to create a session once you enter the service layer, and that session should be available transparently to the repository implementations without actually having to constantly pass it around. But i didn't just want to store it somewhere and have all the classes that needed the current session get it directly from that place. Also, i didn't want the current session to be available to everyone. Another important requirement was to have maximum flexibility for writing tests. I could just use Rhino-Commons' implementations of the UnitOfWork and Repository patterns and be done with it, but where's the fun in that? And since this application is mostly a learning experience i figured i should try to write this myself. After a bit of searching and experimenting, i finally came up with a way that i'm happy with (for now anyways). Let's have a look.

To illustrate what i want, take a look at this made-up method in my service layer:

        public ProductCategoryDTO[] GetAllProductCategories()

        {

            using (ISession session = GetNewSession())

            {

                var repository = GetProductCategoryRepository();

                var categories = repository.GetAllProductCategories();

                return categories.ToDTOs();

            }

        }

This is just some example code, it doesn't even work. But it's kinda what i want... The thing is, i don't want to deal directly with the ISession type in the service layer, but i do want the ProductCategoryRepository to use the ISession that is created within the context of this method call.

NHibernate's ISession type is an implementation of the Unit Of Work pattern. I don't want to use the ISession directly in my service layer because i want something that is a bit more high-level. Basically just something that would allow me to work within an NHibernate session, and provide me with the ability to flush changes to the database whenever i want to. And obviously, i want it to allow me to create a transaction as well. So i came up with the following unit of work interface:

    public interface IUnitOfWork : IDisposable

    {

        /// <summary>

        /// Flushes any changes that haven't been executed yet

        /// </summary>

        void Flush();

 

        /// <summary>

        /// Creates an ITransaction instance with the ReadCommitted isolation level

        /// </summary>

        /// <returns></returns>

        ITransaction CreateTransaction();

 

        /// <summary>

        /// Creates an ITransaction instance with the given isolation level

        /// </summary>

        /// <param name="isolationLevel"></param>

        /// <returns></returns>

        ITransaction CreateTransaction(IsolationLevel isolationLevel);

    }

This interface pretty much offers me anything i'm concerned with in my service layer. The real implementation would do a bit more though... It has to create an NHibernate session and make it available to the repositories in a clean way. Here's the thing though... the repositories have a completely different lifetime than the NHibernate sessions. The NHibernate session has to be created when we enter a service method, and it has to be valid within the scope and context of the execution of that service method. The repositories however stay alive for the lifetime of the application so they can't just hold a reference to an NHibernate session. Every time you call a method of a repository, it has to find out which session it should use, which is the session that is being used in the context of the current service method call. Now, we could always pass around the session but that really doesn't look good and is cumbersome. So i basically need something that gives me access to the active nhibernate session:

    public interface IActiveSessionManager

    {

        /// <summary>

        /// Returns the active ISession for the current thread. Throws exception if there's

        /// no active ISession instance

        /// </summary>

        /// <returns></returns>

        ISession GetActiveSession();

 

        /// <summary>

        /// Sets the active ISession for the current thread. Throws exception if there's

        /// already an active ISession instance

        /// </summary>

        /// <param name="session"></param>

        void SetActiveSession(ISession session);

 

        /// <summary>

        /// Clears the active ISession for the current thread.

        /// </summary>

        void ClearActiveSession();

    }

That gives me the ability to retrieve and set the active session on a per-thread basis. After all, a service method call will be handled by one thread, so setting the active session for that current thread is a convenient way to store the session.

Now i still need something that takes care of creating the NHibernate sessions:

    public interface ISessionFactory

    {

        /// <summary>

        /// Creates a new ISession instance

        /// </summary>

        /// <returns></returns>

        ISession Create();

    }

Ok, so what do we have so far? An interface to define the functionality that a UnitOfWork should offer at the service level. An interface to store/retrieve the active session on the current thread, and finally, an interface to actually create the NHibernate session. Let's start looking at the real implementations. Here's the code to the SessionFactory class:

    public class SessionFactory : ISessionFactory

    {

        private readonly NHibernate.ISessionFactory sessionFactory;

 

        public SessionFactory()

        {

            Configuration configuration = new Configuration()

                .Configure()

                .AddAssembly("Northwind");

 

            sessionFactory = configuration.BuildSessionFactory();

        }

 

        public ISession Create()

        {

            return sessionFactory.OpenSession();

        }

    }

Pretty straightforward... it initializes NHibernate and gives us the ability to ask for new sessions. So how are we going to make these sessions available to our repositories? Through the ActiveSessionManager class of course:

    public class ActiveSessionManager : IActiveSessionManager

    {

        [ThreadStatic]

        private static ISession current;

 

        public ISession GetActiveSession()

        {

            if (current == null)

            {

                throw new InvalidOperationException("There is no active ISession instance for this thread");

            }

 

            return current;

        }

 

        public void SetActiveSession(ISession session)

        {

            if (current != null)

            {

                throw new InvalidOperationException("There is already an active ISession instance for this thread");

            }

 

            current = session;

        }

 

        public void ClearActiveSession()

        {

            current = null;

        }

    }

It basically just stores the session in a ThreadStatic field, which means that each thread will have a different static reference for this field. So if we set the active session through the SetActiveSession method in thread X, and thread Y also sets an active session, the GetActiveSession method will return the correct session instances for each thread.

So now we have everything we need to create our UnitOfWork class:

    public class UnitOfWork : Disposable, IUnitOfWork

    {

        private readonly IActiveSessionManager activeSessionManager;

        private readonly ISession session;

 

        public UnitOfWork(ISessionFactory sessionFactory, IActiveSessionManager activeSessionManager)

        {

            this.activeSessionManager = activeSessionManager;

            session = sessionFactory.Create();

            activeSessionManager.SetActiveSession(session);

        }

 

        protected override void DisposeObjects()

        {

            if (session != null)

            {

                session.Close();

                session.Dispose();

            }

        }

 

        protected override void ClearReferences()

        {

            activeSessionManager.ClearActiveSession();

        }

 

        public void Flush()

        {

            session.Flush();

        }

 

        public ITransaction CreateTransaction()

        {

            return CreateTransaction(IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted);

        }

 

        public ITransaction CreateTransaction(IsolationLevel isolationLevel)

        {

            return session.BeginTransaction(isolationLevel);

        }

    }

When the UnitOfWork is created, it receives an ISessionFactory instance, and an IActiveSessionManager instance. It then creates a new session through the ISessionFactory and uses the IActiveSessionManager to make sure that session is the active session for the current thread. When the UnitOfWork is disposed, it closes and cleans up the session and it also uses the IActiveSessionManager to clear the active session for the current thread. Oh and it obviously also provides implementations for what it is we actually need in our service layer: flushing the changes whenever we want and creating transactions.

The ISessionFactory and IActiveSessionManager instances should stay alive as long as the application is alive. But as you could see in the implementations of those types, we didn't write any code to deal with their lifetimes. I'm actually relying on my IoC container for that. In the class where my container is set up, you'll find the following code:

        private static void RegisterUnitOfWorkComponents()

        {

            Register(Component.For<ISessionFactory>()

                .ImplementedBy<SessionFactory>().LifeStyle.Singleton);

            Register(Component.For<IActiveSessionManager>()

                .ImplementedBy<ActiveSessionManager>().LifeStyle.Singleton);

            Register(Component.For<IUnitOfWork>()

                .ImplementedBy<UnitOfWork>().LifeStyle.Transient);

        }

ISessionFactory and IActiveSessionManager are registered as singleton instances, so whenever these types are requested, the same instances will be returned. The IUnitOfWork type is registered with a transient lifetime, so whenever it is requested, the container will create a new UnitOfWork class and pass the ISessionFactory and IActiveSessionManager instances to the constructor.

Right, we've taken care of creating the session, associating it with the current thread and making it available in a nice and clean way. Now we actually have to make sure our repositories can use it. In the base repository implementation, you can find the following code:

        private readonly IActiveSessionManager activeSessionManager;

 

        public Repository(IActiveSessionManager activeSessionManager)

        {

            this.activeSessionManager = activeSessionManager;

        }

 

        protected ISession Session

        {

            get { return activeSessionManager.GetActiveSession(); }

        }

Whenever a repository needs a session, it just needs to use the protected Session property and it will get the session that is associated with the current thread.

So now we can rewrite our made-up service method from earlier to the following:

        public ProductCategoryDTO[] GetAllProductCategories()

        {

            using (Container.Resolve<IUnitOfWork>())

            {

                var repository = Container.Resolve<ProductCategoryRepository>();

                var categories = repository.GetAllProductCategories();

                return categories.ToDTOs();

            }

        }

We know that the NHibernate session will be created, and more importantly, that it is not just globally accessible to everyone. It can only be accessed when you have a reference to an IActiveSessionManager instance. We also don't need to pass around the session all the time so our code is a bit more concise, showing only the intent of what we're trying to do without distracting us with details that are not relevant to that intent. We also have a lot of flexibility to write tests... i can write tests for my repositories without having to create a UnitOfWork... i can simply pass a fake IActiveSessionManager to my repositories when i'm testing them and have it return the session that i'm using for my test. All in all, this approach offers me with a lot of advantages, without ugly disadvantages. Well, at this moment i don't really see any disadvantages so if you do see some, please let me know :)

Automanual Dependency Injection?

I apologize in advance for using the term 'automanual' but if you've been reading this blog for a while you already know i completely suck at coming up with good names. So bear with me, and you'll probably understand what i mean as you work your way through this post. It really is pretty cool... i promise :p

I'm playing around with some supervising controller MVP stuff using regular ASP.NET webforms. Yes i know, i should be using ASP.NET MVC but i have a strict "i don't touch it before there's a final release"-policy when it comes to Microsoft products (as opposed to my "lemme just build the latest version of the trunk"-policy for various open source products). Anyways, what i'm trying to do is pretty simple. I have a view (ProductList.aspx) which uses a supervising controller (ProductListController). The view (the aspx page) will notify the controller when it needs to do something through events. The controller will then do whatever it needs to do and it will send the data back to the view through properties of the view. If that's not clear to you, read the post i linked to for a much better and detailed explanation.

Since ASP.NET automatically instantiates your aspx page, the easiest thing to do is to let the view create the controller and then pass itself as a parameter to the controller. But the controller also has other dependencies, such as a service which exposes the business logic that we need for this screen. So i have two options: i either create the controller myself and provide all the dependencies, or i use an inversion of control container to create the controller and to wire up all the dependencies. I don't want to have to modify my view code whenever i add/remove a dependency of the controller, so i go with the inversion of control container.

Suppose the constructor of the controller looks like this:

        public ProductListController(IProductList view, IProductsService productsService)

        {

            this.view = view;

            this.productsService = productsService;

        }

Here's where it gets tricky... since the view (which implements the IProductList interface) is asking the container to create a ProductListController, how can the container pass the correct IProductList dependency to the controller? We can't use the regular dependency look-up mechanisms because our controller actually needs the current view instance, but that view instance is asking the container to create the controller! By default, the container has no way whatsoever to resolve the IProductList dependency to the current view instance. So basically, what we want to do in this case is to manually provide the view dependency, but still have the container automatically provide the IProductsService dependency (hence the term 'automanual' which you have to admit is starting to sound pretty good at this point, right?). And of course, we want all of this to work automagically.

It turns out that Castle's Windsor actually does have some slick tricks to make this work. Here's how we can create the controller through the container from the view:

            IProductListController controller =

                Container.Resolve<IProductListController>(new { view = this });

Told you it was slick! It's pretty easy actually... the parameter we pass to the Resolve method is an instance of an anonymous type with a view property. We set the view property to the current aspx instance (using the 'this' keyword obviously) and Windsor is smart enough to figure out that this value should be used to satisfy the view dependency instead of using it's normal look-up mechanisms. The result is that our controller has a reference to the current view, and its IProductsService reference is resolved as the container would typically resolve dependencies. Pretty sweet.

Btw, i googled the term 'automanual' and sure enough, it already exists... but it's not really used in the context of writing code so if this thing sticks, remember where you heard it first ;)

Windsor’s Interceptors and Performance, Part 2

Gael Fraiteur's comment on my previous post made me realize that my performance test in the previous post wasn't all that good...

Let's go back to the part of the code that performed the test:

        [Test]

        public void TestDummyPerformance()

        {

            Time(() => CallMethodXAmountOfTimes(new Dummy(), 1000000));

            Time(() => CallMethodXAmountOfTimes(Container.Resolve<IDummy>(), 1000000));

        }

 

        private void CallMethodXAmountOfTimes(IDummy dummy, int times)

        {

            for (int i = 0; i < times; i++)

            {

                dummy.DoSomething();   

            }

        }

 

        private void Time(Action action)

        {

            DateTime before = DateTime.Now;

            action();

            Console.WriteLine("Time elapsed : " + (DateTime.Now - before));

        }

The Time method has an Action parameter, which basically points to a block of code that will be executed when you call it. In this case the action() line causes the block of code to be executed. I have a habit of trying to write concise code, so the instantiation of the dummy instance is in both cases inlined in the block of code that will be executed by the Time() method. As Gael points out in his comment, Windsor generates a proxy when you request a component that has an interceptor assigned to it, and this is obviously a more expensive operation than simply new-ing a concrete instance. So this extra cost was reflected in the results as well.

If we change the test code to this:

        [Test]

        public void TestDummyPerformance()

        {

            var dummy = new Dummy();

            Time(() => CallMethodXAmountOfTimes(dummy, 1000000));

            var interceptedDummy = Container.Resolve<IDummy>();

            Time(() => CallMethodXAmountOfTimes(interceptedDummy, 1000000));

        }

Now, the difference is not so big as it was in the previous test: Time elapsed : 00:00:00.0100144 Time elapsed : 00:00:00.2403456

Again, this is for one million method calls... in a real world scenario, you probably won't notice the performance hit.

Adding behavior without modifying existing code with Windsor

The Windsor container makes it quite easy to add behavior to components, without having to modify their implementation. This could be useful in many scenario's. Suppose you need to log whenever a method from our OrderRepository class is called. But we should be able to turn the logging on and off whenever we want. Preferably, without having to modify the code all the time. Now, you could easily write a logger class that checks for a configuration setting and only logs when needed. This approach would definitely work. But then there's logging code all over the OrderRepository class and in most cases, it's not even necessary since they only want to be able to log under certain circumstances. Should the OrderRepository class really care about the logging? Why litter the code with logging statements?

If you're using the Windsor container, you could easily add logging behavior to the OrderRepository class without having to change any of the existing code. Windsor has this concept of Interceptors. Basically you can assign an interceptor to any component and you can plug in your custom behavior when the component is called. Lets get into an example... Since logging is such a common requirement, we decided to put it in one class instead of littering our entire code base with logging statements. So we wrote the following class:

    public class LoggingInterceptor : Castle.Core.Interceptor.IInterceptor

    {

        private readonly ILogger logger;

 

        public LoggingInterceptor(ILogger logger)

        {

            this.logger = logger;

        }

 

        public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)

        {

            string methodName =

                invocation.TargetType.FullName + "." + invocation.GetConcreteMethod().Name;

            Log("Entering method: " + methodName);

            invocation.Proceed();

            Log("Leaving mehod: " + methodName);

        }

 

        private void Log(string line)

        {

            logger.WriteLine(DateTime.Now.TimeOfDay + " " + line);

        }

    }

This class implements the IInterceptor interface by implementing the Intercept method. When that method is called we simply construct the full method name, log when we enter the method, call the original method and then we log again when we leave the method. Nothing more, nothing less. Also notice how the LoggingInterceptor has a dependency on an ILogger instance. That instance will be injected by the container as well.

So first of all, we need to define the ILogger and LoggingInterceptor components:

      <component id="ILogger" service="Components.ILogger, Components"

                type="Components.Logger, Components" />

 

      <component id="LoggingInterceptor" service="Components.LoggingInterceptor, Components"

                type="Components.LoggingInterceptor, Components"

                lifestyle="transient" />

Right... so now we need to add this behavior to the OrderRepository class. This only requires modifying the registration of the IOrderRepository component:

      <component id="IOrderRepository"

                service="Components.IOrderRepository, Components"

                type="Components.OrderRepository, Components">

 

        <interceptors>

          <interceptor>${LoggingInterceptor}</interceptor>

        </interceptors>

 

      </component>

What we basically did was tell Windsor that whenever an IOrderRepository is requested, we should return an instance of OrderRepository and each time a method of that instance is called, it needs to be intercepted by our LoggingInterceptor.

So if we simply call the IOrderRepository methods like this (obviously these are dummy calls without real parameters and we're also ignoring return values):

            var repository = Container.Resolve<IOrderRepository>();

 

            repository.GetAll();

            repository.FindOne(new Criteria());

            repository.FindMany(new Criteria());

            repository.GetById(Guid.Empty);

            repository.Store(null);

The following output is logged:

21:53:42.6942016 Entering method: Components.OrderRepository.GetAll
21:53:42.6942016 Leaving mehod: Components.OrderRepository.GetAll
21:53:42.6942016 Entering method: Components.OrderRepository.FindOne
21:53:42.6942016 Leaving mehod: Components.OrderRepository.FindOne
21:53:42.6942016 Entering method: Components.OrderRepository.FindMany
21:53:42.6942016 Leaving mehod: Components.OrderRepository.FindMany
21:53:42.7042160 Entering method: Components.OrderRepository.GetById
21:53:42.7042160 Leaving mehod: Components.OrderRepository.GetById
21:53:42.7042160 Entering method: Components.OrderRepository.Store
21:53:42.7042160 Leaving mehod: Components.OrderRepository.Store

And we didn't have to change the OrderRepository implementation. In fact, we can use our LoggingInterceptor wherever we like, as long as the component to be logged is registered with Windsor. And we can easily switch between logging or no logging by switching config files.

Obviously, this was just a really simple example but i hope you realize how powerful this technique is and how far you can go with this.

Providing configuration data with Windsor

Some classes need configuration data to function properly. This configuration data could be a database connection string, a path, a hostname, a network port, whatever. You typically deal with this by putting the configuration data in your app.config or web.config... either through a Settings file or in the AppSettings or maybe you've created your own configuration section or whatever. And in most cases, when a class needs this data, it simply retrieves it from the Configuration class or the class that was created through your Settings class.

By doing this, you actually create a strong dependency between your class, and the object that provides the configuration data. But you're not really dependent on the object providing the data, since you really only need a bit of data to function. So why not treat the data itself as a dependency?

Let's use our previous example. The OrderDataAccessor class will retrieve Orders from a database. In order to do that, it needs a connection string. Instead of letting the OrderDataAccessor class retrieve that connection string from a config file itself, we'll modify the constructor so that each instance retrieves the connection string when it is created:

        private readonly string _connectionString;

 

        public OrderDataAccessor(string connectionString)

        {

            _connectionString = connectionString;

        }

If the container now needs to create an OrderDataAccessor instance, we get the following exception:

Castle.MicroKernel.Resolvers.DependencyResolverException : Could not resolve non-optional
dependency for 'Components.OrderDataAccessor' (Components.OrderDataAccessor).
Parameter 'connectionString' type 'System.String'

Which makes sense, since we haven't told the container about this 'dependency' yet. Since we're dealing with configuration data now, it's probably better to move our Windsor configuration to a config file as well. First we'll define the castle configuration section in our app.config:

  <configSections>

    <section name="castle" type="Castle.Windsor.Configuration.AppDomain.CastleSectionHandler, Castle.Windsor" />

  </configSections>

Then we configure our components:

  <castle>

    <components>

      <component id="IOrderDataAccessor"

          service="Components.IOrderDataAccessor, Components"

          type="Components.OrderDataAccessor, Components">

 

        <parameters>

          <connectionString>myConnectionString</connectionString>

        </parameters>

 

      </component>

 

      <component id="IOrderRepository"

                service="Components.IOrderRepository, Components"

                type="Components.OrderRepository, Components" />

 

    </components>

 

  </castle>

And that's it... Whenever the container instantiates an OrderDataAccessor instance, it will pass 'myConnectionString' to the connectionString parameter.

There's one issue with this though... In a real system, you'd have more than one DataAccessor class, and having to specify the connectionString for each one of them would be a prime example of suckage. So let's modify our config file a little bit:

  <castle>

 

    <properties>

      <connectionString>myConnectionString</connectionString>

    </properties>

 

    <components>

      <component id="IOrderDataAccessor"

          service="Components.IOrderDataAccessor, Components"

          type="Components.OrderDataAccessor, Components">

 

        <parameters>

          <connectionString>#{connectionString}</connectionString>

        </parameters>

 

      </component>

 

      <component id="IOrderRepository"

                service="Components.IOrderRepository, Components"

                type="Components.OrderRepository, Components" />

 

    </components>

 

  </castle>

That's better... Now we can just refer to the connectionString whenever we need it so we'd only have to modify it in one place.

Keep in mind that if you put the Windsor configuration in your app.config/web.config file, you need to instantiate the container like this:

            _container = new WindsorContainer(new XmlInterpreter());

So as you can see, you can also use the IoC container to keep dependencies on configuration-providing-classes completely out of your code by 'promoting' the required configuration data to actual dependencies of your components.