Lately, I’ve been busy learning more about creating serverless solutions. Because my main interest lies within the Microsoft Azure stack I surely had to check out the Azure Functions offering.

Azure Functions enable you to create a serverless solutions which are completely event-based. As it’s located within the Azure space, you can integrate easily with all of the other Azure services, like for example the service bus, Cosmos DB, storage, but also external services like SendGrid and GitHub!

All of these integrations are fine and all, but seeing Azure Functions perform in action is still easiest with regular HTTP triggers. You can just navigate with a browser (or Postman) to a URL and your function will be activated immediately. I guess most people will create these kind of functions in order to learn to work with them, at least that’s what I did.

Creating your Azure Functions App

In order to create Azure Functions, you first have to create a so called Function App in the Azure Portal. Creating such an app is quite easy, the only thing you have to think about is which type of Hosting Plan you want to use. At this time there are 2 options, the Consumption Plan or the App Service Plan.

For years we (a lot of people I know and myself included) have been using the Unit of Work and Repository pattern combined with each other. This makes quite a lot of sense as, in most cases, they both have something to do with your database calls.

When searching for both of these patterns you’ll often be directed to a popular article on the Microsoft documentation site. The sample code over there has a very detailed implementation on how you can implement both of these patterns for accessing and working with your database. I kind of like this post as it goes in great length to describe both the unit of work- and repository pattern and the advantages of using them. I see a lot of projects/companies having implemented the pattern combo like described in the Microsoft article. I can’t really blame them as it’s one of the top hits when you search for it in any search engine.

There is a downside to this sample though. It violates the Open/Closed principle which states

software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification

Whenever you need to add a new repository to your database context, you also need to add this repository to your unit of work, therefore violating the open/closed principle.

On a recent project I had to implement the decorator pattern to add some functionality to the existing code flow.

Not a big problem of course. However, on this project we were using Autofac for our dependency injection framework so I had to check how to implement this pattern using the framework built-in capabilities. One of the reasons I always resort to Autofac is the awesome and comprehensive documentation. It’s very complete and most of the time easy to understand. The advanced topics also have a chapter dedicated to the Adapter- and Decorator pattern which was very useful for implementing the decorator pattern in this project.

I wanted to use the decorator pattern to add some logic to determine if a command should be handled and for persisting database transactions of my commands and queries. You can also use it for things like security, additional logging, enriching the original command, etc.

As the documentation already states, you’ll have to register your original command handler as a Named service. The Autofac extensions for registering a decorator will use this named instance to add the decorators on to. One thing to remember when you need to add several decorators to your command, you’ll have to register each decorator as a named service also, except for the last one!