Tag Archives: BlueMilk

Renaming BlueMilk to Lamar

BlueMilk was the early working name of a successor project to StructureMap that was originally ripped out of the new Jasper framework project. 

Most of the feedback on the name “BlueMilk” wasn’t positive. I wasn’t terribly attached to the name, so I’m officially renaming “BlueMilk” to “Lamar.” The first Nuget (v0.8) is published with the very latest work. I might be able to throw an OSS Friday sometime this week at finishing the remaining StructureMap features inside of Lamar and publishing some documentation, but we’ll see.

First, what the heck is Lamar? For most of you, it’s my intended successor to the venerable, well liked (by at least some people), and unfortunately slowpoke StructureMap library. It’s also the runtime code generation and compilation subsystem I pulled out of Jasper so folks could use that independently of Jasper.

For the moment, you can find way more information about Lamar under the “BlueMilk” tag on my blog.

What’s with the new name?

Other than Marten, most of my OSS efforts the past 2-3 years have really been working toward the Jasper framework we’re brewing up at work as a successor to FubuMVC. “Jasper” itself is just named after my ancestral hometown (Jasper, MO), and most of the other projects on the JasperFx organization are named after either other little towns around Jasper (Oakton, Alba) or local landmarks (Baseline). Fitting into that theme, Lamar is the next town up highway 71 and I’ve got plenty of family roots there as well.

Other notes that may only interest me:

  • Mirabeau B. Lamar was the 2nd president of the Republic of Texas, a hero of the TX revolution, and worlds of things in Texas are named after him. I didn’t know this until researching this post, but Lamar, MO is apparently named after him as well.
  • My wife is *this* close to completing a master’s program at Lamar University and I’m super proud of her
  • Lamar the town is the birthplace of Harry S. Truman
  • It was raided during the Civil War by Quantrill’s Raiders (think Jesse James)
  • Wyatt Earp was their first constable
  • I’m biased, but the Barton County Fair in Lamar may be the best small town fair in the entire state
  • If you’re a Modern Family friend, the Cameron character is supposedly from this area

Differences Between BlueMilk and StructureMap

If you’ve been following me lately on Twitter or in this blog, you know I’ve been busy working on a new project called BlueMilk that’s meant to be a much faster replacement for the venerable StructureMap library. There are some advanced StructureMap features that will not be included into BlueMilk. Otherwise though, I’m aiming to make BlueMilk a near drop in replacement for most StructureMap users in terms of behavior and API. That being said, there are some important differences in behavior that you’ll need to be aware of switching from StructureMap to BlueMilk. In all the cases discussed below, the change was to ensure better compatibility with how our ASP.Net Core overlords believe IoC tools work. Bitterness at the ASP.net team aside, some of these design changes led to almost dramatically simpler internals and performance in BlueMilk compared to StructureMap, so it’s still a win overall.



I dropped some of the old StructureMap verbiage just to be more consistent with ASP.Net Core’s verbiage.

  • “PluginType” becomes “ServiceType”
  • “PluggedType” becomes “ImplementationType”
  • “Instance” is still the name of the BlueMilk unit of registration (it’s basically a superset of ServiceDescriptor in ASP.Net Core), but the API signatures change
  • “Container” is still the same


Constructor Selection

While this has been pluggable and configurable forever, by default StructureMap tries to use the “greediest” public constructor it can find on a concrete type. If there are multiple constructors with the same number of arguments, it uses the first one it encounters.

In BlueMilk, we follow the ASP.Net Core prescribed logic of choosing the greediest constructor where BlueMilk has some known registration for each argument. I’ve always hated this idea, purposely kept it out of StructureMap, and I feel like it’s a bad pattern to use with IoC tools because of the extra mental overhead in understanding what’s going on (it’s an addon for ASP.Net Core usage in StructureMap 4.*), but that’s not worth fighting over.

I don’t like this behavior because it can wallpaper over problems with registrations and give you some false positives. My advice when using an IoC container is to build your classes as if they’re always built by the IoC container. In my experience, folks get in trouble when they try to be half in and half out of IoC usage with multiple constructors and optional arguments.


Object Lifetime / Lifecycle

This one’s a big difference, so do watch out. BlueMilk changes to using the ASP.Net Core verbiage and logic for service lifecycles. Singleton and Scoped work identically in BlueMilk as they did in StructureMap, except that BlueMilk is a lot better about tracking IDisposable dependencies within singleton or scoped construction.

The new “Transient” really maps to StructureMap’s “UniquePerRequest” lifecycle. If you depended on StructureMap’s default “Transient” behavior from before to have objects scoped per logical request or within a nested container, you’ll probably want to switch to the “Scoped” lifecycle.


Use vs. Add No Longer Matters

In the very beginning — and remember that StructureMap is literally the first .Net IoC container so there was no prior art — I had the belief that in the case of multiple registrations for the same service type, the user should explicitly tell StructureMap which one is the default that gets resolved from a call to IContainer.GetInstance(type) and which registrations are just additional services that would be either resolved by name or by an enumerable of all of them.

BlueMilk just uses the ASP.Net Core compliant logic of saying that the very last registration against a service type is the default registration.

In more concrete terms, the old StructureMap Use() and Add() methods now mean the exact same thing, and the last one wins. I might mark one or the other as [Obsolete] just to make the transitions go a little easier. See this code:

var container = new Container(_ =>
    // In StructureMap, this would be the default

    // In BlueMilk, this would be because it's last



BlueMilk 0.8: It’s fast, runs MVC apps, and probably needs a new name

EDIT 4:30 PM CST on 2/21: Egg on my face. How’s this for the new world order of .Net Core? It works perfectly on OS X, but it blows up on the `RegistryPolicyResolver` class only on Windows. I’ll get a 0.8.1 up soon to fix whatever is different.

I just published the latest BlueMilk v0.8 to Nuget with quite a bit of performance optimization, some additional StructureMap functionality added in, and the ability to handle every kind of service registration that a basic MVC Core application will throw at an IoC container.

BlueMilk is the current codename for a new IoC tool that partially originated in Jasper. You can read about the goals and motivation for the project in Introducing BlueMilk: StructureMap’s Replacement & Jasper’s Special Sauce.

One of my colleagues made the observation yesterday that while being a Star Wars nerd and getting the reference, the name “BlueMilk” is off putting and we probably need to change that (plus it feels awkward to say out loud to me). Other than Marten and BlueMilk, all the projects in the JasperFx organization are named after other little towns or landmarks around my hometown. Once upon a time, I parked some of the code that’s not part of BlueMilk in another repository named “Lamar” that fits that naming scheme, plus my wife is doing a master’s program at Lamar University, I have a former coworker who played baseball there, and it’s also the name of a Texas revolutionary hero. If nobody has a better idea, I’ll probably rename BlueMilk to “Lamar.” My other idea was “Corsair,” but that’s really just too cool a name for yet another IoC tool.

Usage in MVC Core

I blogged last week that BlueMilk is Ready for Early Adopters. I was wrong of course, but thank you to Mark Warpool and others for actually trying to use it and giving me some important feedback. The big problems with 0.7 were that the code generation model that BlueMilk uses internally can’t handle internal types and didn’t allow for using generic types as constructor parameters. Wouldn’t you know it, ASP.Net Core MVC has quite a bit of both of those usages in its service registrations and BlueMilk was falling flat on its face in an MVC Core application (correction, “works on my box,” fails on a couple registrations in AppVeyor even though it’s the same version of the .Net SDK. Still saying it’s good to go at least until someone proves it’s a no go).

After a couple fixes (one big and one small), there’s now a test in BlueMilk that successfully builds every possible service registration from a basic MVC Core application. For those of you following along at home, I had to revert to using the dynamic Expression compiled to a Func<> trick to slide around the nonpublic types just to call non-public constructors.


A caveat here, it’s just not terribly likely that your IoC tool of choice is the performance bottleneck in your system. 

First off, Maksim Volkau has built some seriously cool stuff, and BlueMilk got quite a bit of the performance boost I’m talking about here from using his ImTools library (both Marten and StructureMap use FastExpressionCompiler as well).

One of my coworkers asked how BlueMilk compared to StructureMap in terms of performance, so I threw together some benchmarks where I was able to show BlueMilk being over 5X faster than StructureMap over a range of potential usages. I made the mistake of tweeting about that yesterday, and Eric Smith asked me how BlueMilk compared to the build in DI container inside of ASP.Net Core. After adding a comparison to the built in container to my BenchmarkDotNet metrics, I could see that BlueMilk lagged a bit (~30% slower over all). Several optimizations later, I can now say that BlueMilk is (barely) faster than the built in DI container and closing in on an order of magnitude faster than the latest StructureMap.

Using a barebones MVC Core application with logging added in as well, I built a series of metrics that just loops through the registered types and builds each possible type. It’s a lazy way of building up metrics, but it gave me a mix of registrations by type, by lambda, pre-built objects, and some deeper object graphs. It’s probably a bit bogus because this isn’t the way that an application is going to use the IoC tool at runtime and may weight more heavily on usages that don’t actually happen.

That being said, here’s the overall metrics on just creating every possible registered type in that minimal MVC Core application:

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.10.12, OS=macOS 10.12.6 (16G1212) [Darwin 16.7.0]
Intel Core i7-6920HQ CPU 2.90GHz (Skylake), 1 CPU, 8 logical cores and 4 physical cores
.NET Core SDK=2.1.4
  [Host]     : .NET Core 2.0.5 (Framework, 64bit RyuJIT
  DefaultJob : .NET Core 2.0.5 (Framework, 64bit RyuJIT

   Method | ProviderName |      Mean |     Error |    StdDev |
--------- |------------- |----------:|----------:|----------:|
 AllTypes |   AspNetCore |  73.98 us |  1.444 us |  1.976 us |
 AllTypes |     BlueMilk |  70.92 us |  1.408 us |  2.392 us |
 AllTypes | StructureMap | 646.28 us | 12.856 us | 27.398 us |

Getting much more specific, here are some finer grained metrics with an explanation of the different measurements below:

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.10.12, OS=macOS 10.12.6 (16G1212) [Darwin 16.7.0]
Intel Core i7-6920HQ CPU 2.90GHz (Skylake), 1 CPU, 8 logical cores and 4 physical cores
.NET Core SDK=2.1.4
  [Host]     : .NET Core 2.0.5 (Framework, 64bit RyuJIT
  DefaultJob : .NET Core 2.0.5 (Framework, 64bit RyuJIT

      Method | ProviderName |         Mean |        Error |        StdDev |       Median |
------------ |------------- |-------------:|-------------:|--------------:|-------------:|
 CreateScope |   AspNetCore |     429.0 ns |     8.288 ns |      7.347 ns |     428.2 ns |
     Lambdas |   AspNetCore |   1,784.4 ns |    25.886 ns |     22.948 ns |   1,777.8 ns |
   Internals |   AspNetCore |     914.2 ns |    17.575 ns |     15.580 ns |     912.6 ns |
     Objects |   AspNetCore |     810.2 ns |     7.723 ns |      6.449 ns |     808.7 ns |
  Singletons |   AspNetCore |  18,428.6 ns |   203.784 ns |    159.101 ns |  18,441.3 ns |
       Scope |   AspNetCore |     556.7 ns |     7.823 ns |      7.317 ns |     555.9 ns |
  Transients |   AspNetCore |  41,882.1 ns |   391.872 ns |    327.231 ns |  41,787.8 ns |
 CreateScope |     BlueMilk |     110.8 ns |     2.205 ns |      2.944 ns |     111.4 ns |
     Lambdas |     BlueMilk |   2,138.1 ns |    27.465 ns |     25.691 ns |   2,140.5 ns |
   Internals |     BlueMilk |     332.2 ns |     3.926 ns |      3.278 ns |     331.4 ns |
     Objects |     BlueMilk |     586.9 ns |    17.605 ns |     51.633 ns |     575.4 ns |
  Singletons |     BlueMilk |   9,852.8 ns |   196.721 ns |    548.380 ns |   9,780.1 ns |
       Scope |     BlueMilk |     330.8 ns |     5.781 ns |      4.828 ns |     332.1 ns |
  Transients |     BlueMilk |  54,439.2 ns | 1,083.872 ns |  2,967.082 ns |  53,801.7 ns |
 CreateScope | StructureMap |  16,781.0 ns |   334.284 ns |    948.307 ns |  16,584.2 ns |
     Lambdas | StructureMap |  12,329.5 ns |   244.697 ns |    686.155 ns |  12,121.9 ns |
   Internals | StructureMap |  10,585.0 ns |   209.617 ns |    393.712 ns |  10,519.9 ns |
     Objects | StructureMap |  17,739.9 ns |   430.679 ns |    560.005 ns |  17,606.7 ns |
  Singletons | StructureMap | 162,029.0 ns | 3,191.513 ns |  6,148.961 ns | 161,590.8 ns |
       Scope | StructureMap |   5,830.1 ns |   158.896 ns |    463.507 ns |   5,700.8 ns |
  Transients | StructureMap | 451,798.1 ns | 8,988.047 ns | 21,707.143 ns | 448,860.3 ns |

The metrics named in the first column are:

  1. “CreateScope” — measures how long it takes to create a completely new container scope as MVC Core and other frameworks do on each HTTP request.
  2. “Lambdas” — resolving services that were registered with some kind of Func<IServiceProvider, object> factory
  3. “Internals” — resolving non-public types
  4. “Objects” — resolving services that were registered with a pre-built object
  5. “Singletons” — all singleton registrations of all kinds
  6. “Scope” — bad name, but all registrations with the “Scoped” lifetime
  7. “Transients” — all registrations with the “Transient” lifetime


There’s still some performance fat in BlueMilk’s code, but I’m saying that I’ve hit the point of diminishing returns for now and I’m staying put on performance.

New Functionality

BlueMilk v0.8 adds in some old StructureMap behavior for:


I’m probably done working on BlueMilk for now other than the inevitable bug reports. When I do come back to it (or someone else picks it up), the next version (v0.9) will hopefully have support for decorators and interception similar to StructureMap’s existing model. I’d hope to have a 1.0 version out sometime this summer or fall after it’s been in production somewhere for awhile.

BlueMilk is Ready for Early Adopters

This was renamed “Lamar” because the feedback on the name was, um, not good:)


EDIT 2/14/2018: And this already brought out a bug if you have a type that would need a closed generic type as an argument to its constructor. 0.7.1 will follow very shortly on Nuget.


BlueMilk is the name of a new OSS Inversion of Control tool I’m building specifically for usage in Jasper applications, but also as a higher performant replacement for StructureMap in Netstandard 2.0 applications going forward. To read more about what is genuinely unique about its internals and approach, see Jasper’s Roslyn-Powered “Special Sauce.”

I’m declaring BlueMilk 0.7 on Nuget right now as ready for enterprising, early adopter types to try out either on its own or within an ASP.Net Core application. At this point it’s passing all the ASP.Net Core compliance tests with a couple exceptions that I can’t possibly imagine being important in many cases (like the order in which created objects are disposed and a really strange way they order objects in a list when there’s mixed open and closed generic type registrations). It’s also supporting quite a few StructureMap features that I missed while trying to work with the built in DI container.

As I said in the introductory post, you can use BlueMilk as either a drop in replacement for the built in ASP.Net Core DI tool or as a faster subset of StructureMap for a much more richer feature set.

Current Feature Set

In most cases, the BlueMilk feature and API is identical to StructureMap’s and I’ll have to send you to the StructureMap documentation for more explanation.


  • I’m wrestling with the 1st usage, warm up time just due to how long it takes Roslyn to bootstrap itself on its very first usage. What I’ve come up with so far is to have the dynamic classes for services registered as singletons or scoped be built on the initial startup, but allowing any other resolvers be built lazily the first time they are actually used. This is an ongoing struggle.
  • The lifecycle scoping is different than idiomatic StructureMap. I opted to give up and just use the ASP.Net team’s new definition for what “transient” and “scoped” means.
  • There is a dependency for the moment on a library called Baseline, that’s just my junk drawer of convenience extension methods (leftovers from FubuCore for anyone that used to follow FubuMVC). Before BlueMilk hits 1.0, I’ll internalize those extension methods somehow and eliminate that dependency

Using within ASP.Net Core Applications

You’ll want to pull down the BlueMilk.Microsoft.DependencyInjection package to get the ASP.Net Core bootstrapping shim — and blame the ASP.Net team for the fugly naming convention.

In code, plugging in BlueMilk is done through the UseBlueMilk() extension method as shown below:

var builder = new WebHostBuilder();

Pretty standard ASP.Net Core stuff. Using their magical conventions on the Startup class, you can do specific BlueMilk registrations using a ConfigureContainer(ServiceRegistry) method as shown below:

public class Startup
    public void ConfigureContainer(ServiceRegistry services)
        // BlueMilk supports the ASP.Net Core DI
        // abstractions for registering services

        // And also supports quite a few of the old 
        // StructureMap features like type scanning
        services.Scan(x =>


 // Other stuff we don't care about here

Introducing BlueMilk: StructureMap’s Replacement & Jasper’s Special Sauce

BlueMilk is the codename for a new project that’s an outgrowth from our new Jasper framework. Specifically, BlueMilk is extracting the runtime code generation and compilation “Special Sauce” support code that’s in Jasper now into a stand alone library. Building upon the runtime code generation, the logical next step was to make BlueMilk into the intended successor to the venerable StructureMap project as a fast, minimal IoC container on its own, but also supports inlining the service activation code into Jasper’s message and HTTP request handlers.

I think these are the key points for BlueMilk:

  1. Support the essential functionality and configuration API of StructureMap to be an offramp for folks invested in StructureMap that want to move to a faster option in their Netstandard2 applications
  2. Align much closer with the ASP.Net team’s DI compliance behavior. In some cases like object lifecycles, this is a breaking change with StructureMap’s traditional behavior and I don’t entirely agree with their choices, but .Net is their world and all us scrappy community OSS authors are just living in it.
  3. Easy integration into ASP.Net Core applications by directly supporting their abstractions (IServiceCollection, IServiceProvider, ServiceDescriptor, IServiceScope, etc.) out of the box.
  4. Trade in some of the runtime flexibility that StructureMap had in favor of better performance (and fewer ways for users to get themselves in a tangle)
  5. Expose the runtime code generation and compilation model (originally built for Marten, but we took it out later) in a separate library because a few folks have expressed some interest in having just that without using Jasper

There’s a preliminary Nuget up this morning (0.1.0) that supports some of StructureMap’s behavior and all of the ASP.Net Core compliance. You can use a container like this:

// Idiomatic StructureMap
var container = new Container(_ =>
    // StructureMap's old type scanning
    _.Scan(s =>

var widget = container.GetInstance<IWidget>();

// ASP.Net Core DI compatible
IServiceProvider container2 = new Container(_ =>
    _.AddTransient<IWidget, AWidget>();
    _.AddSingleton(new MoneyWidget());

var widget2 = container.GetService<IWidget>();


My Thoughts on Project Scope

I only started working on BlueMilk by itself over the holidays, so it’s not like anything is truly set in concrete, but this list is what I think the scope would be. My philosophy here is to jettison many of the features in StructureMap that cause internal complexity, performance issues, or generate loads of user questions and edge case bugs.

Core Functionality

  1. All ASP.Net Core DI compliance — lifecycle management (note that it’s different than StructureMap’s lifecycle definitions), object disposal, basic service resolution, open generic support, dealing with enumerable types
  2. StructureMap’s basic support for service location
  3. Nested Containers (scoped container)
  4. Type Scanning from StructureMap
  5. Service resolution by name
  6. Lazy & Func<T> resolution
  7. WhatDoIHave() and other diagnostics — no IoC or any other kind of framework author should release a tool without something like this for the sake of their own sanity
  8. Auto-find missing registrations — one of my biggest gripes about the built in container


  1. Inline dependencies
  2. AutoFactory support — I think this could work out very well with the code generation model
  3. Construction Policies
  4. Some of StructureMap’s attribute configuration

Leaving Behind unless someone else really wants to build *and* help support it

  • Interception — Maybe. I’m not super excited about supporting it
  • Child containers and profiles. Utter nightmare to support. Edge case hell. Crazy amount of complexity internally. The only way we use them in work is for per-test isolation, and we can live without them in that case
  • Changing configuration at runtime (Container.Configure()).
  • Passing arguments at runtime. One of the biggest sources of heartburn for me supporting StructureMap. I think the better autofactory support in BlueMilk could be a far better alternative anyway.

Why do this?

One of my fervent goals with Jasper from the very beginning was to maximize performance to the point where its throughput was barely distinguishable from laboriously writing highly optimized bespoke code by hand. I wanted users to have all the productivity benefits of a good framework that takes care of common infrastructure needs without sacrificing performance. I know that some folks will disagree, but I still think there’s ample reasons to use an IoC container to handle quite a bit of the object composition, service activation, object scoping, and service cleanup.

If you allow that assumption of IoC usage, that left me with a couple options and thoughts:

  • I think it’s hugely disadvantageous to .Net frameworks to have to support multiple IoC containers. My experience is that basically every single framework abstraction I have ever seen for an IoC container has been problematic. If you are going to support multiple IoC containers in your application framework, my experience from FubuMVC and from watching the unfolding consternation over ASP.Net Core’s DI compliance is to restrict your framework from making all but a handful of assumptions about IoC container behavior.
  • I could just use my own StructureMap container because I understand it front to back and it fits the way that I personally work and all the .Net developers in my shop know it. The only problem there is that StructureMap has fallen behind in terms of performance. I think I have a decent handle on what it would take to reverse that with a potential 5.0, but I’m just not up for doing the work, I’m exhausted keeping up with user questions, and I really want to get out of supporting StructureMap.
  • I tried a couple times to just use the new built-in ASP.Net Core DI tool, but it’s extremely limited and I was getting frustrated with how many things were missing and how much more hand holding it took to be usable compared to StructureMap.

If you saw my Jasper’s Special Sauce post last week, you know that we are already using the service registration information to opt into inlining all the object construction and disposal directly into the generated message handlers whenever possible. The code that did that was effectively the beginning of a real IoC container, so it wasn’t that big of a jump to pulling all of that code into its own library and building it into the IoC tool that I wanted a theoretical StructureMap 5.0 to be.


Jasper’s Roslyn-Powered “Special Sauce”

As a follow on to my introductory post on the new OSS Jasper messaging framework, here’s an explanation of what’s different about Jasper’s internal approach compared to existing .Net frameworks as well as an argument to why I think it’s a better way.

This is an admittedly long blog post with a lot of background contextual information first. If you’re only here for the “Jasper does crazy stuff with Roslyn” part of it, just skip to the “Special Sauce” section.

In this post, I’m talking about:

  • What makes a tool a framework vs. a library
  • A discussion about the runtime architecture of current .Net frameworks
  • Design challenges for middleware strategies
  • Jasper’s “Special Sauce” approach and why I think it’s a new, better way

What do you mean when you say “Framework?”

First off, Jasper is unmistakably and unapologetically a framework and not just a library. What’s the difference? A library is something your code uses to perform tasks, with the assumption being that your application code is in control and the library code is passive. The Marten persistence tool I work on, logging libraries like NLog or log4net are all examples of library projects. Frameworks on the other hand, follow the Hollywood Principle to handle common workflow events and dealing with technical infrastructure while calling your code just for the actual application logic. Besides Jasper, ASP.Net MVC, NancyFx, or MediatR in the .Net world or Angular.js or Ember.js in the JS world are examples of frameworks (I personally don’t think it’s a clear cut distinction for React on whether or not it’s a framework or a library).

In the case of Jasper, in the process of handling an incoming message it:

  • Logs the arrival of the message
  • Determines from the raw message byte[] array what .Net message type it represents and what deserialization strategy it should use
  • Deserializes the raw data into an actual .Net object that the application code expects
  • Calls any configured middleware for that message type, before finally passing the message to all of the known application handlers for that message type
  • Dispose any IDisposable objects that were created during the message processing
  • Finally, logs the completion, successful or not, and sends out any outgoing messages that “cascaded” from handling the original message if it’s successful
  • If a message fails, process error handling policies to either retry the message, put it back on the queue, stick it into the dead letter queue, or retry it after a delay.

Using Jasper as your messaging framework allows you to focus on just the work that’s specific to your application and let Jasper handle the tedious chores.

The State of the Art in .Net

When a messaging framework needs to process an incoming command or an HTTP framework handles an HTTP request, the common steps are something like this:

  1. Route the incoming data to the proper HTTP route or message type handler
  2. Translate the incoming data to the form that the application handler needs to consume (a message type or a DTO type passed into an HTTP request handler)
  3. Build or find the application specific message or HTTP handlers, along with any other related services
  4. Call the application specific handlers
  5. After the message or HTTP request is complete, do any necessary clean up by disposing services that were created for the request. Stuff like closing and disposing open connections to the database used in handling the message or request.

For right now, let’s focus on 3.) and 4.) up above. We need some way to both discover message handlers or HTTP controllers in the application code and then to execute those handlers or controllers at runtime. I’ve seen and used two different general mechanisms to tackle these issues. The first is to require framework developers to write all their message handlers with some kind of standard interface like this one below:

public interface IHandler
    Task Process(T message, Context context);

It’s simple to understand, and makes a lot of the underlying mechanics in your framework easier. This strategy is also easy to combine with an IoC container to handle by handler discovery with something like StructureMap’s ConnectImplementationsToTypesClosing type scanning convention. Likewise, using an IoC tool makes object creation, scoping, and cleanup relatively simple. It does have the downside of being a little bit intrusive into application code and it’s not quite as flexible as the next alternative.

The other way to call application code is to use some sort of Reflection to dynamically call handlers. This has the advantage of greater flexibility in how the application specific handlers can be created and possibly reducing coupling from the application specific code to the framework infrastructure. ASP.Net MVC is an example of this approach, as was the earlier FubuMVC project I led earlier. The FubuMVC “hello world” endpoint that would just return text as “string/plain” when the “/” route is called looked like this:

    public class HomeEndpoint
        public string Index()
            return "Hello, world.";

The advantage here is that the code can be subjectively “cleaner,” by which I mean to be an absence of framework artifacts like marker interfaces, mandatory base classes, fluent interfaces, or mandatory attributes. This approach by necessity depends on naming conventions that are frequently derided as “magic” by some folks and when used well, praised as “clean” code by people like me. There’s room in the world for both types of folks.

Another significant advantage is being able to be flexible on the method signatures and even use techniques like “method injection” as ASP.Net Core MVC supports with its [FromServices] attribute in this sample below:

public IActionResult About([FromServices] IDateTime dateTime)
    ViewData["Message"] = "Currently on the server the time is " + dateTime.Now;

    return View();

From a technical perspective, the challenge is in how you invoke the application handlers if there is no mandatory interface or base class. Traditionally, your options are:

  • Just use Reflection. It’s slow, but it’s the simplest to use
  • Emit dynamic assemblies with IL at runtime. The early versions of StructureMap used that, and I thought it was excruciating. It’s laborious to code and not very approachable for other contributors to your project. I think you get serious neckbeard points for using this successfully.
  • Use .Net Expressions to dynamically generate and compile Lambda’s. StructureMap does this, and I’m guessing that most other .Net IoC tools do as well. AutoMapper does as well. This model is more approachable than IL, but it’s still not something that most .Net developers can — or would want to — use productively. It also creates horrendously awful stack traces in exception messages. If you do use this technique, definitely check out FastExpressionCompiler.

What about middleware?

By this point, any .Net framework worth its salt is going to support what I used to call the Russian Doll Model of nested handlers with something like ASP.Net Core’s (or OWIN’s) concept of middleware. The purpose is to allow developers to move common, cross-cutting concerns like exception handling, validation, or security to middleware and out of each individual message handler or HTTP controller method. Used judiciously, this can make application code simpler and more robust by simply having fewer things for developers to remember to do. Used badly — and trust me, I’ve seen it used horrendously with my very own FubuMVC “behaviors” model — copious usage of middleware will make your application sluggish, potentially hard to understand, and devilishly hard to debug.

One of the common usages of middleware is to manage transactional boundaries between one or more nested handlers like my shop did several years ago in this post with FubuMVC and RavenDb. A sequence diagram of a typical framework’s internal runtime workflow would look something like this:


Most .Net frameworks that I’m aware of will use a scope (nested container in StructureMap parlance, IServiceScope in ASP.Net Core, LifetimeScope in Autofac) per message or HTTP request. Using a container scope allows the framework to easily control the scoping of services like a Marten IDocumentSession or an EF DbContext that should be shared by all other services participating in the logical transaction. The container scope usage also allows the framework to clean up resources by calling Dispose() on all the IDisposable objects created during the processing of the message.

As a framework author and as a user of a framework, you’ve got a couple challenges with middleware:

  • Understanding what middleware is applicable to each message type or HTTP route. Sooner or later, it’s going to be necessary to visualize the layers of middleware to debug some problem or other
  • Properly scoping services that are shared between different middleware or the message handlers. ASP.Net Core does this by sharing the container scope as part of the HttpContext and doing a lot of service location at different places in the runtime. FubuMVC and some versions of NServiceBus build the middleware objects and the handlers wrapped inside of them per HTTP request or message being processed. I can tell you from experience helping folks using StructureMap to write ASP.Net Core middleware that their approach can be problematic. The FubuMVC approach was sluggish and did way too many object allocations in memory.
  • The stack traces can be epically bad and noisy, making developer troubleshooting more difficult than it should be
  • Hopefully, the container scope and handler object creation isn’t that expensive, but it’s still object allocations that could be potentially eliminated

Jasper’s Special Sauce

Jasper was largely conceived as a next generation replacement for the earlier FubuMVC framework, and takes a lot of lessons and bias — both positive and negative — from our usage of FubuMVC over the past decade. Roughly speaking, we wanted to support a superset of the message handler signatures (and HTTP endpoint signatures too, but that’s a subject for another day), with the addition of support for method injection of dependencies and support for static methods or classes as well for perfectly stateless handlers. We also wanted to keep roughly the same kind of compose-ability with per message type middleware we had with FubuMVC, but this time be able to provide much more visibility to how the middleware was composed at runtime for easier debugging. At the same time, we knew that FubuMVC suffered from performance problems from the sheer number of objects it created and destroyed in its runtime pipeline. For my personal sanity, I knew that we needed to make the exception stack traces coming out of Jasper have a lot less noise.

Very early on, we theorized that we could heavily use the forthcoming runtime code generation and compilation capability in Roslyn to write the tightest possible “glue” code at runtime that handles the intermediation between the Jasper framework, the associated middleware, and the application handlers.

The actual message handlers activated and executed by Jasper’s internal pipeline all inherit from this base class:

    public abstract class MessageHandler
        // Error handling policies for the message type
        // and other configuration kind of things that
        // the Handle method might need
        public HandlerChain Chain { get; set; }

        // This method actually processes the incoming Envelope
        public abstract Task Handle(IInvocationContext input);

Removing the actual middleware noise cleaned up the exception stack traces dramatically. Surfacing the generated code up to users serves as a cheap, but effective visualization of what’s going on internally for developers. Finally, we were sure that this strategy would greatly improve our performance by drastically reducing memory allocations and method delegations in our internals. And wouldn’t you know it, the NServiceBus team who had earlier borrowed FubuMVC’s “Behavior” model, made the same kind of change to using generated code (but with Expression’s) and reported an absurd improvement in their measured performance. Jasper uses a similar approach to NServiceBus 6, but I think we go much farther and that our code generation model will be much more approachable to outsiders than having to deal with Expressions.

In the next section I’ll show what the code generation does, and talk about how to write the fastest possible code with Jasper.

Sample Messaging Scenario

To see the code generation in action, let’s say that we need to handle a CreateItemCommand message, and save a corresponding ItemCreatedEvent document using Marten as our backing store.

The command and event objects look like this:

    public class CreateItemCommand
        public string Name { get; set; }

    public class ItemCreatedEvent
        public Item Item { get; set; }

In its crudest form, the message handler in Jasper using a traditional class instance that takes all of its dependencies in via constructor injection:

    public class CreateItemHandler
        private readonly IDocumentStore _store;

        // store is the Marten IDocumentStore
        public CreateItemHandler(IDocumentStore store)
            _store = store;

        public async Task Handle(CreateItemCommand command)
            using (var session = _store.LightweightSession())
                var item = new Item {Name = command.Name};
                await session.SaveChangesAsync();

At runtime, Jasper will generate this code for the actual MessageHandler:

    public class ShowHandler_CreateItemCommand : Jasper.Bus.Model.MessageHandler
        private readonly IDocumentStore _documentStore;

        public ShowHandler_CreateItemCommand(IDocumentStore documentStore)
            _documentStore = documentStore;

        public override Task Handle(Jasper.Bus.Runtime.Invocation.IInvocationContext context)
            var createItemHandler 
                = new ShowHandler.CreateItemHandler(_documentStore);
            var createItemCommand = (ShowHandler.CreateItemCommand)context.Envelope.Message;
            return createItemHandler.Handle(createItemCommand);


Notice anything missing here from the “typical” framework pipeline I talked about in previous sections? That missing thing is any trace whatsoever of an IoC container at runtime. It turns out that the very fastest IoC container for object resolution is no container. With that in mind, any time that Jasper can figure out from the underlying service registrations how to do all the object construction and disposal per message inside of the generated Handle() method, it will not use the IoC container whatsoever. While there are plenty of cases that Jasper can’t quite handle yet and has to resort to generate code that does service location, we’re working very hard to close those gaps.

There’s a couple other things to note in the code up above:

  • The MessageHandler objects are compiled and created at runtime, and they are singleton scoped inside the application
  • The IDocumentStore dependency is known to be a singleton in the service registrations, so it is injected into the MessageHandler during its construction so there doesn’t have to be any kind of service lookup for that at runtime

Jasper can also support method injection of service dependencies in the message handler actions, so we could just pull in IDocumentStore as a method argument and simplify the code a little bit. Once you do that though, the ShowHandler class is entirely stateless, so let’s go a little bit farther and just make ShowHandler a static class like so:

    public static class CreateItemHandler
        public static async Task Handle(CreateItemCommand command, IDocumentStore store)
            using (var session = store.LightweightSession())
                var item = new Item {Name = command.Name};
                await session.SaveChangesAsync();

Okay, the “static” keyword is a little bit of noise, but we got rid of the private field for the store and the constructor function, so it’s a little bit tighter. Using that handler above will result in Jasper generating this code:

    public class ShowHandler_CreateItemCommand : Jasper.Bus.Model.MessageHandler
        private readonly IDocumentStore _documentStore;

        public ShowHandler_CreateItemCommand(IDocumentStore documentStore)
            _documentStore = documentStore;

        public override Task Handle(Jasper.Bus.Runtime.Invocation.IInvocationContext context)
            var createItemCommand = (ShowHandler.CreateItemCommand)context.Envelope.Message;
            return ShowHandler.CreateItemHandler.Handle(createItemCommand, _documentStore);


The key thing up above being that switching to a static method in our message handler means one less object allocation for the message handler objects.

Finally, the one single bit of middleware that we built to prove out this whole strategy just happens to be some Marten transactional support. There are other ways to apply the middleware, but for right now I’ll just decorate the method with a [MartenTransaction] attribute from the Jasper.Marten library to apply that middleware handling around the handler. For fun, let’s even say that the act of handling the command emits a new event message that will be “cascaded” as an outgoing message when the original message has been completely processed. To do that, just return the event from your handler method. If the middleware is handling the call to IDocumentSession.SaveChangesAsync()/RollbackAsync() for me, I can simplify the message handler code in my application down even further to this now:

    public class CreateItemHandler
        public static ItemCreatedEvent Handle(
            CreateItemCommand command, 
            IDocumentSession session)
            var item = new Item {Name = command.Name};

            return new ItemCreatedEvent{Item = item};

If you notice, we’re able to use a synchronous method signature here instead of being forced to repetitively all return Task.CompletedTask; every which way because Jasper is smart enough to handle those mechanics for us in its code generation. It’s even smart enough to (imperfectly) switch from a method with an “async Task” signature to a method that can return a Task from the last line of code or “Task.CompletedTask.”

The handler above, with the Marten transaction middleware wrapped in, gives us this compiled code:

    public class ShowHandler_CreateItemCommand : Jasper.Bus.Model.MessageHandler
        private readonly IDocumentStore _documentStore;

        public ShowHandler_CreateItemCommand(IDocumentStore documentStore)
            _documentStore = documentStore;

        public override async Task Handle(Jasper.Bus.Runtime.Invocation.IInvocationContext context)
            var createItemCommand = (ShowHandler.CreateItemCommand)context.Envelope.Message;
            using (var documentSession = _documentStore.OpenSession())
                var outgoing1 = ShowHandler.CreateItemHandler.Handle(createItemCommand, documentSession);
                await documentSession.SaveChangesAsync();



So, yeah, there’s some magic going on with conventions that some folks absolutely hate, but if it’s easy to get at the generated code internally and you can just read and even debug into that, are conventions really that scary anymore?

Our hope is that the code generation model leads to applications written with Jasper being just as performant as purely bespoke code, but with far less effort on the developer’s part. We think that our runtime codegen model gives Jasper the best of all possible worlds by allowing for very clean, flexible code without sacrificing anything in terms of performance.

It’s a ways away, but I’m well underway in the process of ripping the code generation support out into its own library under the BlueMilk moniker and growing that into a streamlined, performant replacement for StructureMap as well. I’ll blog next week about the vision and maybe the timeline for BlueMilk by itself.