Handling two different application flows
We are building an application where we have to have both old and new version to work side by side (V1 is old and V2 is new). Now to handle new flow we are using same old interfaces with everything being the same and differs only in functionality, hence now we have to define a named instance in-order to resolve the instances for new flow.
In the process teams have started using Service Factory Pattern as shown below
class DataProcessor
{
private readonly IDataManager _dataManager;
public DataProcessor(IServiceFactory serviceFactory)
{
_dataManager = serviceFactory.GetInstance<IDataManager>();
}
public void Execute()
{
_dataManager.Run();
}
}
Service Factory Class
public class ServiceFactory : IServiceFactory
{
private readonly IFeatureEvaluator _featureEvaluator;
public ServiceFactory(IFeatureEvaluator featureEvaluator)
{
_featureEvaluator = featureEvaluator;
}
public T GetInstance<T>()
{
if (_featureEvaluator.IsEnabled<"V2">())
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<T>("V2")
}
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<T>();
}
}
Since Service Factory is anti-pattern and also it creates lot of complexities in retiring the old flow in future, I would want a way to initialize the dependencies at the container(structuremap ioc) itself or to work in a "Pure DI" way so that we can avoid headache. Any idea on how to tackle this.
Update:
IDataManager Implementation
public interface IDataManager
{
void Run();
}
public class OldFlow : IDataManager
{
public void Run()
{
//
}
}
public class NewFlow : IDataManager
{
public void Run()
{
//
}
}
IDataManager has 2 implementations and resolving the instance should be based on _featureEvaluator, if V2 flow then "newflow" should be instantiated else "old flow" instance
c# dependency-injection service-factory
asked Nov 21 '18 at 14:05
Wizard vivekWizard vivek
112
add a comment |
We are building an application where we have to have both old and new version to work side by side (V1 is old and V2 is new). Now to handle new flow we are using same old interfaces with everything being the same and differs only in functionality, hence now we have to define a named instance in-order to resolve the instances for new flow.
In the process teams have started using Service Factory Pattern as shown below
class DataProcessor
{
private readonly IDataManager _dataManager;
public DataProcessor(IServiceFactory serviceFactory)
{
_dataManager = serviceFactory.GetInstance<IDataManager>();
}
public void Execute()
{
_dataManager.Run();
}
}
Service Factory Class
public class ServiceFactory : IServiceFactory
{
private readonly IFeatureEvaluator _featureEvaluator;
public ServiceFactory(IFeatureEvaluator featureEvaluator)
{
_featureEvaluator = featureEvaluator;
}
public T GetInstance<T>()
{
if (_featureEvaluator.IsEnabled<"V2">())
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<T>("V2")
}
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<T>();
}
}
Since Service Factory is anti-pattern and also it creates lot of complexities in retiring the old flow in future, I would want a way to initialize the dependencies at the container(structuremap ioc) itself or to work in a "Pure DI" way so that we can avoid headache. Any idea on how to tackle this.
Update:
IDataManager Implementation
public interface IDataManager
{
void Run();
}
public class OldFlow : IDataManager
{
public void Run()
{
//
}
}
public class NewFlow : IDataManager
{
public void Run()
{
//
}
}
IDataManager has 2 implementations and resolving the instance should be based on _featureEvaluator, if V2 flow then "newflow" should be instantiated else "old flow" instance
c# dependency-injection service-factory
asked Nov 21 '18 at 14:05
Wizard vivekWizard vivek
112
add a comment |
We are building an application where we have to have both old and new version to work side by side (V1 is old and V2 is new). Now to handle new flow we are using same old interfaces with everything being the same and differs only in functionality, hence now we have to define a named instance in-order to resolve the instances for new flow.
In the process teams have started using Service Factory Pattern as shown below
class DataProcessor
{
private readonly IDataManager _dataManager;
public DataProcessor(IServiceFactory serviceFactory)
{
_dataManager = serviceFactory.GetInstance<IDataManager>();
}
public void Execute()
{
_dataManager.Run();
}
}
Service Factory Class
public class ServiceFactory : IServiceFactory
{
private readonly IFeatureEvaluator _featureEvaluator;
public ServiceFactory(IFeatureEvaluator featureEvaluator)
{
_featureEvaluator = featureEvaluator;
}
public T GetInstance<T>()
{
if (_featureEvaluator.IsEnabled<"V2">())
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<T>("V2")
}
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<T>();
}
}
Since Service Factory is anti-pattern and also it creates lot of complexities in retiring the old flow in future, I would want a way to initialize the dependencies at the container(structuremap ioc) itself or to work in a "Pure DI" way so that we can avoid headache. Any idea on how to tackle this.
Update:
IDataManager Implementation
public interface IDataManager
{
void Run();
}
public class OldFlow : IDataManager
{
public void Run()
{
//
}
}
public class NewFlow : IDataManager
{
public void Run()
{
//
}
}
IDataManager has 2 implementations and resolving the instance should be based on _featureEvaluator, if V2 flow then "newflow" should be instantiated else "old flow" instance
c# dependency-injection service-factory
asked Nov 21 '18 at 14:05
Wizard vivekWizard vivek
112
We are building an application where we have to have both old and new version to work side by side (V1 is old and V2 is new). Now to handle new flow we are using same old interfaces with everything being the same and differs only in functionality, hence now we have to define a named instance in-order to resolve the instances for new flow.
In the process teams have started using Service Factory Pattern as shown below
class DataProcessor
{
private readonly IDataManager _dataManager;
public DataProcessor(IServiceFactory serviceFactory)
{
_dataManager = serviceFactory.GetInstance<IDataManager>();
}
public void Execute()
{
_dataManager.Run();
}
}
Service Factory Class
public class ServiceFactory : IServiceFactory
{
private readonly IFeatureEvaluator _featureEvaluator;
public ServiceFactory(IFeatureEvaluator featureEvaluator)
{
_featureEvaluator = featureEvaluator;
}
public T GetInstance<T>()
{
if (_featureEvaluator.IsEnabled<"V2">())
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<T>("V2")
}
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<T>();
}
}
Since Service Factory is anti-pattern and also it creates lot of complexities in retiring the old flow in future, I would want a way to initialize the dependencies at the container(structuremap ioc) itself or to work in a "Pure DI" way so that we can avoid headache. Any idea on how to tackle this.
Update:
IDataManager Implementation
public interface IDataManager
{
void Run();
}
public class OldFlow : IDataManager
{
public void Run()
{
//
}
}
public class NewFlow : IDataManager
{
public void Run()
{
//
}
}
IDataManager has 2 implementations and resolving the instance should be based on _featureEvaluator, if V2 flow then "newflow" should be instantiated else "old flow" instance
c# dependency-injection service-factory
c# dependency-injection service-factory
asked Nov 21 '18 at 14:05
Wizard vivekWizard vivek
112
asked Nov 21 '18 at 14:05
Wizard vivekWizard vivek
112
edited Nov 21 '18 at 14:47
Wizard vivek
asked Nov 21 '18 at 14:05
Wizard vivekWizard vivek
112
asked Nov 21 '18 at 14:05
Wizard vivekWizard vivek
112
asked Nov 21 '18 at 14:05
Wizard vivekWizard vivek
112
112
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Why don't you just inject the dependency you need?
public class DataProcessor
{
private readonly IDataManager _dataManager;
public DataProcessor(IDataManager dataManager)
{
_dataManager = dataManager;
}
public void Execute()
{
_dataManager.Run();
}
}
In your Composition Root you can conditionally compose DataProcessor with the implementation of IDataManager you'd like:
public DataProcessor CreateDataProcessor()
{
if (_featureEvaluator.IsEnabled<"V2">())
{
IDataManager dm = new NewFlow();
return new DataProcessor(dm);
}
IDataManager dm = new OldFlow();
return new DataProcessor(dm);
}
This seems to be similar to feature toggles. Why, by the way, is _featureEvaluator an interface? Wouldn't a bool suffice?
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:33
Mark SeemannMark Seemann
185k33328567
IDataManager has 2 implementations, Yes _featureEvaluator was composed as an interface to make DI compliant and yes we are using feature toggles.
– Wizard vivek
Nov 21 '18 at 14:37
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53413847%2fhandling-two-different-application-flows%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Why don't you just inject the dependency you need?
public class DataProcessor
{
private readonly IDataManager _dataManager;
public DataProcessor(IDataManager dataManager)
{
_dataManager = dataManager;
}
public void Execute()
{
_dataManager.Run();
}
}
In your Composition Root you can conditionally compose DataProcessor with the implementation of IDataManager you'd like:
public DataProcessor CreateDataProcessor()
{
if (_featureEvaluator.IsEnabled<"V2">())
{
IDataManager dm = new NewFlow();
return new DataProcessor(dm);
}
IDataManager dm = new OldFlow();
return new DataProcessor(dm);
}
This seems to be similar to feature toggles. Why, by the way, is _featureEvaluator an interface? Wouldn't a bool suffice?
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:33
Mark SeemannMark Seemann
185k33328567
IDataManager has 2 implementations, Yes _featureEvaluator was composed as an interface to make DI compliant and yes we are using feature toggles.
– Wizard vivek
Nov 21 '18 at 14:37
add a comment |
Why don't you just inject the dependency you need?
public class DataProcessor
{
private readonly IDataManager _dataManager;
public DataProcessor(IDataManager dataManager)
{
_dataManager = dataManager;
}
public void Execute()
{
_dataManager.Run();
}
}
In your Composition Root you can conditionally compose DataProcessor with the implementation of IDataManager you'd like:
public DataProcessor CreateDataProcessor()
{
if (_featureEvaluator.IsEnabled<"V2">())
{
IDataManager dm = new NewFlow();
return new DataProcessor(dm);
}
IDataManager dm = new OldFlow();
return new DataProcessor(dm);
}
This seems to be similar to feature toggles. Why, by the way, is _featureEvaluator an interface? Wouldn't a bool suffice?
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:33
Mark SeemannMark Seemann
185k33328567
IDataManager has 2 implementations, Yes _featureEvaluator was composed as an interface to make DI compliant and yes we are using feature toggles.
– Wizard vivek
Nov 21 '18 at 14:37
add a comment |
Why don't you just inject the dependency you need?
public class DataProcessor
{
private readonly IDataManager _dataManager;
public DataProcessor(IDataManager dataManager)
{
_dataManager = dataManager;
}
public void Execute()
{
_dataManager.Run();
}
}
In your Composition Root you can conditionally compose DataProcessor with the implementation of IDataManager you'd like:
public DataProcessor CreateDataProcessor()
{
if (_featureEvaluator.IsEnabled<"V2">())
{
IDataManager dm = new NewFlow();
return new DataProcessor(dm);
}
IDataManager dm = new OldFlow();
return new DataProcessor(dm);
}
This seems to be similar to feature toggles. Why, by the way, is _featureEvaluator an interface? Wouldn't a bool suffice?
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:33
Mark SeemannMark Seemann
185k33328567
Why don't you just inject the dependency you need?
public class DataProcessor
{
private readonly IDataManager _dataManager;
public DataProcessor(IDataManager dataManager)
{
_dataManager = dataManager;
}
public void Execute()
{
_dataManager.Run();
}
}
In your Composition Root you can conditionally compose DataProcessor with the implementation of IDataManager you'd like:
public DataProcessor CreateDataProcessor()
{
if (_featureEvaluator.IsEnabled<"V2">())
{
IDataManager dm = new NewFlow();
return new DataProcessor(dm);
}
IDataManager dm = new OldFlow();
return new DataProcessor(dm);
}
This seems to be similar to feature toggles. Why, by the way, is _featureEvaluator an interface? Wouldn't a bool suffice?
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:33
Mark SeemannMark Seemann
185k33328567
edited Nov 21 '18 at 15:21
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:33
Mark SeemannMark Seemann
185k33328567
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:33
Mark SeemannMark Seemann
185k33328567
answered Nov 21 '18 at 14:33
Mark SeemannMark Seemann
185k33328567
185k33328567
IDataManager has 2 implementations, Yes _featureEvaluator was composed as an interface to make DI compliant and yes we are using feature toggles.
– Wizard vivek
Nov 21 '18 at 14:37
add a comment |
IDataManager has 2 implementations, Yes _featureEvaluator was composed as an interface to make DI compliant and yes we are using feature toggles.
– Wizard vivek
Nov 21 '18 at 14:37
IDataManager has 2 implementations, Yes _featureEvaluator was composed as an interface to make DI compliant and yes we are using feature toggles.
– Wizard vivek
Nov 21 '18 at 14:37
IDataManager has 2 implementations, Yes _featureEvaluator was composed as an interface to make DI compliant and yes we are using feature toggles.
– Wizard vivek
Nov 21 '18 at 14:37
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53413847%2fhandling-two-different-application-flows%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
