Month: February 2018

C# Cloud Application Architecture – Commanding via a Mediator (Part 5)

Over the last 4 parts of this series we’ve taken a simple application built around a layered architecture and restructured it into an application based around dispatching queries and commands as state through a mediator.

We’ve seen many of the advantages this can bring to a codebase reducing repetition and allowing for a clear decomposition into business, or service, oriented modules.

In this final part I’ll demonstrate how this pattern can support an application through the various stages of it’s lifecycle. The early stages of a software development project are often susceptible to a high degree of change. If it’s a new product under development then the challenge is often around establishing market fit (be that internal or external) without burning through the entire budget. Additionally if the problem domain is new it’s likely that the first attempt at drawing out bounded contexts will contain errors and if the system is built as fully isolated components change can be expensive. In either case keeping the cost of development and change low in the early phases of the project can lead to much more effective use of a projects budget.

In the system we’ve been developing we’ve developed three sub-systems: a checkout, a shopping cart and a product store – essentially we have a modular monolith.

In this part we’re going to assume that we’re finding that our product store is coming under a lot of strain and we are going to pull it out into a micro-service so that we can scale it independently. And we’re going to make this change without altering any consuming business logic code at all.

In our system we make use of the store in two places through the dispatch of GetStoreProductQuery queries. Firstly it is represented in the primary API as an endpoint that can be called by clients in the ProductController class:

public class ProductController : AbstractCommandController
    public ProductController(ICommandDispatcher dispatcher) : base(dispatcher)

    [ProducesResponseType(typeof(StoreProduct), 200)]
    public async Task<IActionResult> Get([FromRoute] GetStoreProductQuery query) => await ExecuteCommand(query);

Secondly it is also used to provide validation of products within the handler for the AddToCartCommand in the AddToCartCommandHandler class:

public async Task<CommandResponse> ExecuteAsync(AddToCartCommand command, CommandResponse previousResult)
    Model.ShoppingCart cart = await _repository.GetActualOrDefaultAsync(command.AuthenticatedUserId);

    StoreProduct product = (await _dispatcher.DispatchAsync(new GetStoreProductQuery{ProductId = command.ProductId})).Result;

    if (product == null)
        _logger.LogWarning("Product {0} can not be added to cart for user {1} as it does not exist", command.ProductId, command.AuthenticatedUserId);
        return CommandResponse.WithError($"Product {command.ProductId} does not exist");
    List<ShoppingCartItem> cartItems = new List<ShoppingCartItem>(cart.Items);
    cartItems.Add(new ShoppingCartItem
        Product = product,
        Quantity = command.Quantity
    cart.Items = cartItems;
    await _repository.UpdateAsync(cart);
    return CommandResponse.Ok();

To make our change the first thing we need to do is to be able to execute our command inside a different host – we’ll use an Azure Function that accepts the ProductID required by ourGetStoreProductQuery query. The code for this function is shown below:

public static class GetStoreProduct
    private static readonly IServiceProvider ServiceProvider;
    private static readonly AsyncLocal<ILogger> Logger = new AsyncLocal<ILogger>();
    static GetStoreProduct()
        IServiceCollection serviceCollection = new ServiceCollection();
        MicrosoftDependencyInjectionCommandingResolver resolver = new MicrosoftDependencyInjectionCommandingResolver(serviceCollection);
        ICommandRegistry registry = resolver.UseCommanding();
        serviceCollection.UseStore(() => ServiceProvider, registry, ApplicationModeEnum.Server);
        serviceCollection.AddTransient((sp) => Logger.Value);
        ServiceProvider = resolver.ServiceProvider = serviceCollection.BuildServiceProvider();

    public static async Task<IActionResult> Run([HttpTrigger(AuthorizationLevel.Anonymous, "get", "post", Route = null)]HttpRequest req, ILogger logger)
        Logger.Value = logger;
        logger.LogInformation("C# HTTP trigger function processed a request.");
        IDirectCommandExecuter executer = ServiceProvider.GetService<IDirectCommandExecuter>();

        GetStoreProductQuery query = new GetStoreProductQuery
            ProductId = Guid.Parse(req.GetQueryParameterDictionary()["ProductId"])
        CommandResponse<StoreProduct> result = await executer.ExecuteAsync(query);
        return new OkObjectResult(result);

Our static constructor sets up our IoC container (Azure Functions actually run on app service instances and you can share state between them – though their are few guarantees and you can debate at length how “serverless” this makes things – AWS Lambda is much the same) and should be fairly familiar code by now.

Our function entry point does something different – it creates an instance of our GetStoreProductQuery from the query parameters supplied but rather than dispatch it through the ICommandDispatcher interface we’ve seen before it executes it using a reference to a IDirectCommandExecuter resolved from our IoC container. This instructs the command framework to execute the command without any dispatch semantics – that means that any logging of dispatch portions of the command flow won’t be replicated by this function and it is slightly more efficient (it’s worth noting that you can dispatch again here if you need to – though generally you would take the approach I am showing here).

To support this new approach I’ve also made a change to the IServiceCollectionsExtensions UseStore registration method inside the Store.Application project so that it can be supplied an enum that determines how our command should be handled: in process (as we’ve been doing up until now), as a client of a remote service, or as a server (as we have done above). The enum is used to register the command in one of two ways and this is the key change to the existing change that enables us to remote the command:

if (applicationMode == ApplicationModeEnum.InProcess || applicationMode == ApplicationModeEnum.Server)
else if (applicationMode == ApplicationModeEnum.Client)
    // this configures the command dispatcher to send the command over HTTP and wait for the result
    Uri functionUri = new Uri("http://localhost:7071/api/GetStoreProduct");
    commandRegistry.Register<GetStoreProductQuery, CommandResponse<StoreProduct>>(() =>
        IHttpCommandDispatcherFactory httpCommandDispatcherFactory = serviceProvider().GetService<IHttpCommandDispatcherFactory>();
        return httpCommandDispatcherFactory.Create(functionUri, HttpMethod.Get);

Both the in-process and server mode continue to register the handler as they have done before however when the application mode is set to client the registration takes a different form. Rather than register the handler we supply the type of the command and the type of the result as generic type parameters but then we setup a lambda that will resolve an instance of a IHttpCommandDispatcherFactory and create a HTTP dispatcher with the URI of the function and the HTTP verb to use. These interfaces can be found within the NuGet package AzureFromTheTrenches.Commanding.Http which I’ve added to the Store.Application project.

Registering in this way instructs the commanding system to dispatch the command using the, in this case, HTTP dispatcher rather than attempt to execute it locally. All the other framework features around the dispatch process continue to behave as usual and as we saw earlier you can pick this up on the other side of the HTTP call with the IDirectCommandExecuter.

I have shifted some other code around inside the solution to support code sharing with the Azure Function but that is really the extent of the code change. We’ve changed no business logic or consuming application code – we’ve simply moved where the command runs and the calling semantics are seamless – and essentially split the store out as a micro-service running inside an Azure Function. As long as you build your sub-systems as isolated units as we have here this same approach can be used with queues and other forms of remote call.

I’ve found this approach to be massively powerful – in the early stages of a project you can make changes within a codebase and with an operational environment that is fairly simple and is easy to manage and supported by tooling and as long as you have the tests to go with it refactoring a solution like this is really simple and is supported by tools like Resharper. Then, as you begin to lock things down or the solution grows, you can pull out the sub-systems into fully independent micro services without significant code change – it’s largely just configuration as we’ve seen above.

I wrote the commanding framework I’ve been using specifically to enable this approach and you can find it, and documentation, on GitHub here.

I hope this series has been interesting and presented (or refreshed) a different way of thinking about C# application architecture. There’s a fair chance I’ll swing back round and talk a bit about commanding result caching and some other scenarios that this approach enables so watch this space.

In the meantime if you have any questions about the approach or my commanding framework please do get in touch over on Twitter.

Finally the code for this final part can be found on GitHub here:

Other Parts in the Series

Part 4
Part 3
Part 2
Part 1

AzureFromTheTrenches.Commanding 6.1.0 – 10x Performance Improvement

I spent some time today look at the performance of my commanding / mediator framework. Although I did a little performance work early on I’ve made a lot of changes since then and been very focused on getting the feature set and API where I want it.

As a target I wanted to get near to the performance of Mediatr – an excellent framework that describes itself as a “simple, unambitious mediator implementation”. When I began work on my framework I had flexibility as a key goal: I wanted it to support persistent event based models (event sourcing) and an evolutionary approach to architecture and development enabling the seamless movement between command handlers that run locally and remotely. There’s usually a performance price to pay for flexibility and features and so although I’d used some performance focused techniques in the code it seemed unlikely I’d be able to equal the performance of a smaller simpler framework. I decided getting within 20% the performance of Mediatr would be a reasonable price to pay for the additional functionality and flexibility.

Despite starting off in a pretty dismal place – nearly 10x slower than Mediatr – I’ve improved the performance of the framework so it is now about 10% faster than Mediatr as can be seen below (the numbers are from running large numbers of commands through both frameworks):

Commands Time Taken (ms) Per Command (ms)
AzureFromTheTrenches.Commanding 6.1.0 10000000 11695 0.0011695
Mediatr 4.0.1 10000000 12818 0.0012818
AzureFromTheTrenches.Commanding 6.0.0 10000000 127709 0.0127709


I’m really pleased by that but I would suggest the numbers are sufficiently close that unless you have an extreme scenario you would be better choosing between the two frameworks based on other factors – predominantly how well they address your specific domain.

For those interested in how I improved the performance of the framework I’ll be documenting my process in an upcoming post (as well as highlighting a blooper that illustrates the need to always test performance in code where it is important).

Fixing a Common IoC Container Anti-pattern – the every class is public problem

An anti-pattern I’ve seen a lot over the last few years involves the registration of dependencies in an IoC container at the root of a project (or in a dedicated “IoC” project) – an approach enabled by making every single class in every assembly in the codebase public. It’s amazing how common it is and you see it in codebases that are poor in general and codebases that are otherwise well constructed. As such I find myself talking about it frequently and so it seemed a ripe topic for a blog post.

There are numerous issues with the “every class is public” approach:

  1. As someone reading or using the code I can no longer differentiate between the public API of a subsystem and the interfaces and classes designed for internal consumption.
  2. The registering project (for example an ASP.Net application) is making decisions about the lifecycle of components in another assembly and sub-system – and therefore about the internal implementation of that sub-system. This often leads to things getting out of sync and the issues arising from this kind of lifecycle registration / implementation mismatch can be subtle.
  3. The registering project has to be aware of every single thing in the system and reference every subsystem. One of the effective techniques to police code architecture is by looking at the dependency map and this is heavily polluted if you’re doing this.
  4. The scope of a code change is often larger than it should be and spans sub-systems when it doesn’t need to – if a project takes the root registration approach then adding a class and interface for internal use means I also have to visit the root project.
  5. If sub-systems are run within multiple hosts (for example a Web API and a queue processor) then registration is either duplicated in both root projects or an “IoC configuration” project is introduced: we’ve got ourselves in such a pickle that we now need a whole project dedicated to understanding both internal and external dependencies of sub-systems.

Encapsulation is a good thing – it shouldn’t be thrown away when moving from the class to the assembly level. It’s just as important there – perhaps even more so in modern codebases which are formed of many small classes with few methods rather than large classes with many methods.

I’ve provided a simple example of this common issue in the project you can find here:

Conceptually in this project we’ve got three assemblies:

  1. A console app (ConsoleApp) that depends on (2)
  2. An assembly (Calendar) providing calendar functionality to the console app that depends on (3)
  3. An assembly (Notifications) providing notification functionality to the calendar assembly

From a required dependency point of view it looks like this:

But because of the every class is public issue it is actually implemented like this:

You can see the anti-pattern manifest itself in code in the RegisterDependencies method of Program.cs in the console app:

static IServiceProvider RegisterDependencies()
    IServiceCollection services = new ServiceCollection();
    services.AddTransient<Calendar.DataAccess.ICalendarRepository, Calendar.DataAccess.CalendarRepository>();
    services.AddTransient<Calendar.ICalendarManager, Calendar.CalendarManager>();
    services.AddSingleton<Notifications.INotifier, Notifications.Notifier>();
    services.AddTransient<Notifications.Channel.IEmail, Notifications.Channel.Email>();

    return services.BuildServiceProvider();

Does the console app have any business knowing that the ICalendarRepository is implemented by the CalendarRepository class? Should it even know about the email channel? Can it safely register the INotifier implementation as a singleton? The answer to all of those questions is no. Absolutely not.

The fix for this is pretty simple and it was great to see Microsoft adopt a version of it in ASP.Net Core as part of their formalisation of dependency inversion in that framework. All you need do is encapsulate the registration logic inside your sub systems – and if you need to conditionally configure the registration then pass through an options block (an example of this can be seen in my commanding framework).

I’m going to show two versions of the fix – one based on using the containers registration interface, which has the byproduct of your assemblies becoming tied to an IoC container, and another that doesn’t require this.

Solution with a container interface

The approach adopted by Microsoft in the ASP.Net Core assemblies and the related packages is to use extension methods on the container interface (in the Microsoft case that’s IServiceCollection). If we take this approach the registration in our console app now looks like this:

static IServiceProvider RegisterDependencies()
    IServiceCollection services = new ServiceCollection();

    return services.BuildServiceProvider();

Additionally our console app no longer has a reference to the notification sub-system as this is now dealt with by the calendar’s AddCalendar registration method:

public static class ServiceCollectionExtensions
    public static IServiceCollection AddCalendar(this IServiceCollection serviceCollection)
        serviceCollection.AddTransient<ICalendarRepository, CalendarRepository>();
        serviceCollection.AddTransient<ICalendarManager, CalendarManager>();


        return serviceCollection;

Inside the calendar project only the interfaces intended for external consumption are marked as public with the rest moving to internal. It’s no longer possible to access the assemblies private implementation from the outside and we’ve moved the lifecycle and registration logic closer to the code that is written in line with those expectations.

And finally the notification assembly takes the same approach:

public static class ServiceCollectionExtensions
    public static IServiceCollection AddNotifications(this IServiceCollection serviceCollection)
        serviceCollection.AddSingleton<INotifier, Notifier>();
        serviceCollection.AddTransient<IEmail, Email>();
        return serviceCollection;

With this approach we’ve addressed all three of the concerns I raised at the start of this piece and have moved back to a place where encapsulation is used to help us both read the code and use it safely.

It could well be argued that having your sub-systems reference and be aware of the specific IoC container in use is itself another anti-pattern. I’d tend towards agreeing but it can be a pragmatic choice for an internal codebase – though it’s flawed if you are creating packages for others to use: you’ve built in a hard dependency on a specific IoC container. You can solve this by defining your own interface for proxying over a container and having people implement it or use a functional approach which we’ll look at next.

The code for the above approach can be found here:

Solution with functions

An alternative to the interface approach is to use a functional style passing down lambda expressions. If we take this approach our console application’s registration method now looks like this:

static IServiceProvider RegisterDependencies()
    IServiceCollection services = new ServiceCollection();
        (iface, impl) => services.AddTransient(iface, impl),
        (iface, impl) => services.AddSingleton(iface, impl));

    return services.BuildServiceProvider();

We simply wrap the relevant lifecycle registration methods on IServiceCollection inside lambda expressions and pass them down to a registration method in our calendar sub system:

public static class Dependencies
    public static void AddCalendar(
        Action<Type, Type> addTransient,
        Action<Type, Type> addSingleton)
        addTransient(typeof(ICalendarRepository), typeof(CalendarRepository));
        addTransient(typeof(ICalendarManager), typeof(CalendarManager));

        Notifications.Dependencies.AddNotifications(addTransient, addSingleton);

This registers our types using the lambda expressions and passes them on to the notification dependency:

public static class Dependencies
    public static void AddNotifications(
        Action<Type, Type> addTransient,
        Action<Type, Type> addSingleton)
        addSingleton(typeof(INotifier), typeof(Notifier));
        addTransient(typeof(IEmail), typeof(Email));

Again this approach addresses the concerns that arise when implementation classes are made public and registration is centralised but with the added advantage that the sub-systems are independent of any specific IoC container. In my experience this also discourages people from misusing many of the “advanced” capabilities that can be found on IoC containers – but that’s a topic for another post.

The code for this approach can be found here:

Wrap up

Hopefully in the above I’ve highlighted a common pitfall and demonstrated two solutions to it. There are of course many other variants you can apply depending on your specific project. If you disagree or have any questions please feel free to reach out on Twitter.


  • If you're looking for help with C#, .NET, Azure, Architecture, or would simply value an independent opinion then please get in touch here or over on Twitter.

Recent Posts

Recent Tweets

Recent Comments




GiottoPress by Enrique Chavez