Skip to main content

Digging through SignalR - Commands

Looking over source code of SignalR. I found some interesting class and ways to implement different behaviors. In the next series of post I will share with you what I found interesting.
Before starting, you should know that SignalR is an open source project that can be accessed using GitHub.
In today post we will talk about command pattern. This patterns over the ability to define a “macro”/command that can be executed without knowing the caller. Commands can be handle in different ways, from create a queue of them to combining or offering support for redo/undo.
In SignalR library I found an implementation of command pattern that caught my attention.
internal interface ICommand
{
    string DisplayName { get; }
    string Help { get; }
    string[] Names { get; }
    void Execute(string[] args);
}
internal abstract class Command : ICommand
{
    public Command(Action<string> info, Action<string> success, Action<string> warning, Action<string> error)
    {
        Info = info;
        Success = success;
        Warning = warning;
        Error = error;
    }

    public abstract string DisplayName { get; }

    public abstract string Help { get; }

    public abstract string[] Names { get; }

    public abstract void Execute(string[] args);

    protected Action<string> Info { get; private set; }

    protected Action<string> Success { get; private set; }

    protected Action<string> Warning { get; private set; }

    [System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Performance", "CA1811:AvoidUncalledPrivateCode", Justification = "May be used in future derivations.")]
    protected Action<string> Error { get; private set; }
}
Why? The way how the handlers for actions like success, warning, info and error are transmitted. When creating the command, you need to specify them through the construct. In this way the developer will be forced to specify them. I think that this a great and simple way to specify them. If a developer don’t want to handle this actions, that he can transmit a null value for them. This solution is better than having one or more events.
Maybe it would be pretty interesting to wrap this 4 parameters in a simple class. In this way you could have all the similar actions under the same object. Beside this we would reduce the numbers of parameters of the Command class with 3.
internal class CommandCallbackActions
{
    public CommandCallbackActions(Action<string> info, Action<string> success, Action<string> warning, Action<string> error)
    {
        Info = info;
        Success = success;
        Warning = warning;
        Error = error;
    }
    
    protected Action<string> Info { get; private set; }

    protected Action<string> Success { get; private set; }

    protected Action<string> Warning { get; private set; }

    [System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Performance", "CA1811:AvoidUncalledPrivateCode", Justification = "May be used in future derivations.")]
    protected Action<string> Error { get; private set; }
}

internal abstract class Command : ICommand
{   
    public Command(CommandCallbackActions callbackActions)
    {
        CallbackActions = callbackActions;
    }

    public abstract string DisplayName { get; }

    public abstract string Help { get; }

    public abstract string[] Names { get; }

    public abstract void Execute(string[] args);

    public CommandCallbackActions CallbackActions { get; set; }
}
Another method that drew my attention was the “Execute” command. The command arguments are send through an array of string. This is a very and simple and robust way to send parameters. If this is enough for your application, than you should not change this to something more complicated. Otherwise you can replace the array of arguments with an interface (“ICommandArgs”). Each custom command can have his implementation of this interface. You should use this only if you really need, otherwise you will only make the project more complicated.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to check in AngularJS if a service was register or not

There are cases when you need to check in a service or a controller was register in AngularJS.
For example a valid use case is when you have the same implementation running on multiple application. In this case, you may want to intercept the HTTP provider and add a custom step there. This step don’t needs to run on all the application, only in the one where the service exist and register.
A solution for this case would be to have a flag in the configuration that specify this. In the core you would have an IF that would check the value of this flag.
Another solution is to check if a specific service was register in AngularJS or not. If the service was register that you would execute your own logic.
To check if a service was register or not in AngularJS container you need to call the ‘has’ method of ‘inhector’. It will return TRUE if the service was register.
if ($injector.has('httpInterceptorService')) { $httpProvider.interceptors.push('httpInterceptorService&#…

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine:
threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration:

TeamCity.NET 4.51EF 6.0.2VS2013
It seems that there …

Run native .NET application in Docker (.NET Framework 4.6.2)

Scope
The main scope of this post is to see how we can run a legacy application written in .NET Framework in Docker.

Context
First of all, let’s define what is a legacy application in our context. By a legacy application we understand an application that runs .NET Framework 3.5 or higher in a production environment where we don’t have any more the people or documentation that would help us to understand what is happening behind the scene.
In this scenarios, you might want to migrate the current solution from a standard environment to Docker. There are many advantages for such a migration, like:

Continuous DeploymentTestingIsolationSecurity at container levelVersioning ControlEnvironment Standardization
Until now, we didn’t had the possibility to run a .NET application in Docker. With .NET Core, there was support for .NET Core in Docker, but migration from a full .NET framework to .NET Core can be costly and even impossible. Not only because of lack of features, but also because once you…