Skip to main content

Replacing inheritance by closures

For a long time I have been using inheritance to allow other developers to extend my code.

Imagine I have the following class responsible for managing a unit of work:

   1:  public class UnitOfWork:IUnitOfWork
   2:  {
   3:     public virtual ITransaction CreateTransaction()
   4:     {
   5:        return new Transaction(){TimeOut=new Timespan(0,0,60)};
   6:     }
   7:  }

Important here is the CreateTransaction() method which  just creates a transaction with some default time out settings. Now what if you want to change this timeout value. I could change the implementation so that you can pass some extra settings when calling this method. But the next time I want to add another setting, I have to change my class again. Therefore I made this method virtual allowing the developer to override my default implementation.

The problem is that in this case I find it overkill to create a new class just for changing this one small setting. Another option is the usage of closures.

Nested closure is one of those fancy patterns Martin Fowler first coined and published on his DSL WIP site. His formal definition:

Express statement sub-elements of a function call by putting them into a closure in an argument.

You pass a delegate as a method parameter. The receiving method executes the function represented by that delegate against an object it controls.  Nested closure in C# is easy to spot because the delegate is usually typed as Action<T>, where T is the type of the object that the called method will provide as a parameter to our argument function.

Nested closure is like template method, but instead of deriving from a base class to affect behavior, the additional behavior is provided as an argument.  In the same way that template method is great when you want to communicate behavior from derivations to base classes, nested closure works when you want to communicate behavior as you call a method.

How does this changes my code?

   1:  public class UnitOfWork:IUnitOfWork
   2:  {
   3:     public UnitOfWork()
   4:     {
   5:        this.ConstructTransaction=()=> return new Transaction(){TimeOut=new TimeSpan(0,0,60)};
   6:     }
   7:   
   8:     Func<ITransaction> ConstructTransaction{get;set;}
   9:   
  10:     public ITransaction CreateTransaction()
  11:     {
  12:        return ConstructTransaction();
  13:     }
  14:  }

By exposing the internal code of the CreateTransaction method as a Func<ITransaction> it is possible to override the implementation without the need to inherit from this class. Changing the timeout settings will become as simple as:

   1:  var uow=new UnitOfWork();
   2:  uow.ConstructTransaction=()=> new Transaction(){TimeOut=new TimeSpan(0,0,120)};

Note: if you always want to change the same behavior, embedding the code in an inherited class remains a better alternative.

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...
Read more

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...
Read more

The role of ActivitySource in OpenTelemetry for .NET

While doing some pair programming to integrate OpenTelemetry tracing to a .NET application, we had a discussion on how to use the ActivitySource . It looks simple. You new one up, give it a name, start an activity, done. The discussion started when we added a second ActivitySource with the exact same name in a different class. This made us wonder: "Are we duplicating traces now? Is this a memory leak? Do we need a singleton?" So we decided to dig deeper. This post is what we learned… What ActivitySource actually is ActivitySource is part of System.Diagnostics , not part of the OpenTelemetry NuGet packages. Microsoft built tracing primitives directly into the BCL, and OpenTelemetry's .NET SDK simply listens to them. This is why you can add distributed tracing to a library without taking a dependency on OpenTelemetry at all. An ActivitySource is a factory for Activity objects, and an Activity is .NET's name for what OpenTelemetry calls a span.(don’t ask m...
Read more