Skip to main content

CastleWindsor issue with MVC Area

I have been stuck with this issue and couldn't take it out of my head. Hence, ended up putting in some heavy hours solving it. But hopefully it is worth it.

THE CONTEXT:

I am implementing a MVC solution for an existing Sitecore 8.0 implementation which uses Castle Windsor for it's dependency resolver. Let's say a a tiny microsite. I had to implement a SPEAK app as per one of the requirements. Below are the 2 most important things behind why I ran into this issue in the first place:

I needed to call a WebApi from my SPEAK app.
2. I decided to take MVC Area approach for my "tiny microsite" on a completely different sets of dlls

For example the dlls for my "tiny microsite" are MyTinyApp.Web.dll, MyTinyApp.Business.dll whereas the main website's dlls are BigWebsite.Web.dll, BigWebsite.Business.dll etc. 


WHY MVC AREA:

The reason I took the MVC Area approach was to completely separate my "tiny microsite" so that I don't have to touch any of the code from "BigWebsite" implementation (Or it can also be that the code base for the "Big Website" was unavailable to me .. imagine whatever floats your boat).


THE PROBLEM:

After I implemented my MVC Area project on dll called "MyTinyApp.Web.dll" for my "tiny microsite) upon trying to call the WebApi I started getting bellow error:



From the error it's clear that the routing got resolved without any issue. But Castle Windsor for some weird reason decided to step in like "hai .. new controller .. i need to resolve this" which I would be cool with until it couldn't and threw the bizarre error that doen't make sense to begin with. 

I have never told Castle Windsor to resolve any of my stuff for "MyTinyApp.Web.dll" and the exception was getting thrown from BigWebsite.Web.dll. 

WEIRD.


THE SOLUTION:

1. Create a processor in one of your project specific config file like below:


<pipelines>
      <initialize>
                               <processor patch:before="processor[@type='Sitecore.Mvc.Pipelines.Loader.InitializeGlobalFilters, Sitecore.Mvc']" type="MyTinyApp.CastleWindsor.Pipelines.Initialize.InitializeWindsorControllerFactory, MyTinyApp.CastleWindsor" />
     </initialize>

 </pipelines>

2. Create a settings to get the assembly name associated with Big Website's dependency resolver.

  <setting name="BigWebsiteDependancyResolverAssembly" value="BigWebsite.Web.DependencyResolution.ContainerManager,BigWebsite.Web" />

3. Implement the ControllerFactory for TinyApp:


public class InitializeWindsorControllerFactory
    {
        public virtual void Process(PipelineArgs args)
        {
            string assemblyAndClass = ConfigHelper.GetValue("BigWebsiteDependancyResolverAssembly");
                Type resolverType = Type.GetType(assemblyAndClass);
                IWindsorContainer icontainer = (IWindsorContainer)(resolverType.GetProperty("Container").GetValue(null));

                icontainer.Register(Classes.FromAssemblyNamed("oblog.client.mvc").BasedOn<IController>().LifestyleTransient());
        }

    }

And waalaaa .. Double Rainbow and Unicorn,



The trick here was to get it through reflection.

Thus I do not have to touch the BigWebsite codebase at all so I can avoid deployment headache for it. Resolving though reflection makes it completely independent to any other dlls.  

"This is mainly intended for future me." but seriously CastleWindsor WTF !!!!



UPDATE:



So one of my genius colleagues figured out that original implementation of ControllerFactory in BigWebsite.Web project(csproj) had flaw in it. 

Here's his post:


So it was originally like below:

public class WindsorControllerFactory : DefaultControllerFactory
    {
        private readonly IKernel kernel;

        public WindsorControllerFactory(IKernel kernel)
        {
            this.kernel = kernel;
        }

        public override void ReleaseController(IController controller)
        {
            kernel.ReleaseComponent(controller);
        }

        protected override IController GetControllerInstance(RequestContext requestContext, Type controllerType)
        {
            if (controllerType == null)
            {
                throw new HttpException(404, string.Format("The controller for path '{0}' could not be found.", requestContext.HttpContext.Request.Path));
            }

            return (IController)kernel.Resolve(controllerType);
        }

    }

Because of this line in the implementation of the ContainerManager class which you put in the initialize pipeline:
container.Install(FromAssembly.InDirectory(new AssemblyFilter(Path.GetDirectoryName(Uri.UnescapeDataString((new UriBuilder(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().CodeBase)).Path)), "BigWebsite*.dll")));
the described error was getting thrown from this line :  
return (IController)kernel.Resolve(controllerType);

Weirdly, most of the blog/tutorials show this example for implementing Castle Windsor for MVC.
The fix is to have this instead:
try
            {
                return (IController)kernel.Resolve(controllerType);
            }
            catch (Exception ex)
            {
                // do something
                return base.GetControllerInstance(requestContext, controllerType);

            }

And everything else works fine from here. No need to implement extra pipeline to inject you "mvc area" implementation dll into the pipeline or modify existing implementation.


Hope it helps someone facing the same issue save time so that he/she can utilize it properly to dress up like wookie.

  



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The story of a Hack Job

"So, you have hacked it" -- Few days ago one of the guys at work passed me this comment on a random discussion about something I built. I paused for a moment and pondered: Do I reply defending how that's not a hack. OR Do I just not bother I picked the second option for 2 reasons: It was late. It probably isn't worth defending the "hack vs" topic as the comment passed was out of context. So I chose the next best action and replied "Yep, sure did and it is working great.". I felt like Batman in the moment. In this post I will rant about the knowledge gap around hacking and then describe about one of the components of my home automation project (really, this is the main reason for this post) and use that as an example how hacking is cool and does not always mean bad. But first lets align on my definition of hacking: People use this term in good and bad, both ways. For example: "He/she did a hack job" -- Yeah, that probably

Smart wifi controlled irrigation system using Sonoff and Home Assistant on Raspberry Pi - Part 1

If you have a backyard just for the sake of having one or it came with the house and you hate watering your garden or lawn/backyard then you have come to the right place. I genuinely believe that it is a waste of my valuable time. I would rather watch bachelorette on TV than go outside, turn on tap, hold garden hose in hand to water. Too much work!! Luckily, we have things like sprinkler system, soaker etc which makes things a bit easy. But you still have to get off that comfy couch and turn on tap (then turn off if there's no tap timer in place). ** Skip to the youtube video part if reading is not your thing   When I first moved into my house at first it was exciting to get a backyard (decent size), but soon that turned on annoyance when it came down maintaining it, specially the watering part. I laid bunch sprinklers and soaker through out the yard and bought tap timer but I still needed to routinely turn on the tap timer. Eventually few days ago I had enough of this rub

Exception Handling With Exception Policy

This is how I would think of an application at the very basic level: Now this works great. But one thing that is missing in this picture is Exception Handling . In many cases we pay very less attention to it and take it as "we'll cross that bridge when it'll come to that". We can get away with this as in many application as exceptions does not stop it from being in the state "is the application working" as long as we code it carefully and at the very least handling the exceptions in code blocks. This works. But we end up having try catch and if else everywhere and often with messy or no direction to what type of exception is to be handled where and how. Nonetheless, when it comes down an enhancement that depends upon different types exceptions, we will end up writing/modifying code every where, resulting in even messier code. I'm sure no one wants that. Even, in scenarios, a custom handler is not the answer either. Cause this way we will s