We Keep Coding

How to implement a simple workflow pipeline fluent api method chaining?

I would like to find a good design pattern on how to implement this example business workflow. Instead of using one giant monolithic procedural-like method call, I was thinking I would like to use a fluent method chaining -- basically, a simple workflow pipeline without using one of those workflow or BPM frameworks. Suggestions on best practice, perhaps a known design pattern?
My Example
get configuration / user preferences
validate config/preferences
look up / standardize additional config/preferences
get report 1 (with above input)
get report 2, etc.
email reports
The inputs/user preferences causes a lot of if/else logic, so I don't want to have my method have to contain all my if/else logic to see if each step was successful or not, and handle. (i.e. I do NOT want)
myOutput1 = CallMethod1(param1, param2, our errorMsg)
if (error)
{ // do something, then break }
myOutput2 = CallMethod2(param1, param2, our errorMsg)
if (error)
{ // do something, then break }
...
myOutput9 = CallMethod9(param1, param2, our errorMsg)
if (error)
{ // do something, then break }
Sample Idea Pipeline code
Perhaps something like this? Would it work? How can I improve upon it?
public class Reporter
{
private ReportSettings Settings {get; set;}
private ReportResponse Response {get; set;}
public ReportResponse GenerateAndSendReports(string groupName)
{
ReportResponse response = this.GetInputConfiguration()
.ValidateConfiguration()
.StandardizeConfiguration(groupName)
.PopulateReport1()
.PopulateReport2()
.PopulateReport99()
.EmailReports()
.Output();
return response;
}
public Reporter GetInputConfiguration()
{
this.Response = new ReportResponse();
this.Settings = new ReportSetting();
this.Settings.IsReport1Enabled = ConfigurationManager.GetSetting("EnableReport1");
this.Settings.Blah1 = ConfigurationManager.GetSetting("Blah1");
this.Settings.Blah2 = ConfigurationManager.GetSetting("Blah2");
return this;
}
public Reporter StandardizeConfiguration(string groupName)
{
this.Settings.Emails = myDataService.GetEmails(groupName);
return this;
}
public Reporter PopulateReport1()
{
if (!this.Setting.HasError && this.Settings.IsReport1Enabled)
{
try
{
this.Response.Report1Content = myReportService.GetReport1(this.Settings.Blah1, this.Blah2)
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
this.Response.HasError = true;
this.Response.Message = ex.ToString();
}
}
return this;
}
}
I was thinking of something like this

You are mentioning two distinct concepts: fluent mechanism, and the pipeline (or chain of responsibility) pattern.
Pipeline Pattern
Must define an interface IPipeline which contains DoThings();.
The implementations of IPipeline must contain an IPipeline GetNext();
Fluent
All actions must return a reference to the object modified by the action: IFluent.
If you which to better control what options are available and when in your workflow, you could have the Fluent actions returning distinct interfaces: for example IValidatedData could expose IStandardizedData Standardize(), and IStandardizedData could expose IStandardizedData PopulateReport(var param) and IStandardizedData PopulateEmail(var param). This is what LINQ does with enumerables, lists, etc.
However, in your example it looks like you are mostly looking for a Fluent mechanism. The pipeline pattern helps with data flows (HTTP request handlers, for example). In your case you are just applying properties to a single object Reporter, so the pipeline pattern does not really apply.
For those who ended here because they are looking for a two-way (push and pull) fluent pipeline, you want your fluent actions to build the pipeline, by returning an IPipelineStep. The behaviour of the pipeline is defined by the implementation of each IPipelineStep.
You can achieve this as follows:
PipelineStep implements IPipelineStep
PipelineStep contains a private IPipelineStep NextStep(get;set);
IPipelineBuilder contains the fluent actions available to build the pipeline.
Your fluent actions return a concretion which implement both IPipelineStep and IPipelineBuilder.
Before returning, the fluent action updates this.NextStep.
IPipelineStep contains a var Push(var input); and var Pull(var input);
Push does things and then calls this.NextStep.Push
Pull calls this.NextStep.Pull and then does things and returns
You also need to consider how you want to use the pipeline once built: from top to bottom or the other way around.

I know this is an old question, but this is a pretty recent video explaining how to build a nice Fluent API. One thing mentioned, that I think is great, is the idea of using interfaces to enforce the correct order to call the APIs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JAdZul-aRQ

Custom keyword coloring in Visual Studio 2010+

I'm trying to add custom coloring for only certain keywords in my Visual Studio editor for C# code. I want to be able to color any type that implements IDisposable as a different color. Ideally I'd like to create a simple list of classes/interfaces that derive from IDisposable in some sort of configuration that I can edit. (Although if you said there was a method/plugin that would automatically find all disposable types and color them independently that would be the Holy Grail).
I've done a ton of research and it looks like an "editor classifier" extension might do the trick. However I created one that merely tries to color the word "Stream" and although it does hit my code that attempts to highlight that word, it does not end up highlighted in the editor.
I have added my VS extension to Github here
This really seems like this should be fairly straightforward but I have gone down many alleys on this one only to find dead-ends. Is there a simpler way to do this, or is my extension broken?
Update
Very strange. I just ran my extension again and although it does not highlight the text in the editor it highlights all instances of "Stream" in the popup text when you hover over a type/variable! Is there any way to get it to apply to the editor?

Depending on wether you are using Jetbrains Resharper or not you may write a plugin for that. That way you are able not only to add visual notification of IDisposable on a variable but also provide quickfixes if, and only if, it is not beeing called, which is what i am assuming you want to catch. Mind you that i can imagine that there's already a R# plugin for that. I know i've considered this too, but i was too lazy to write a plugin for that.
Don't get me wrong btw - If you're not using r# yet you should consider trying it out.
Among others you'd be working with this: API-QuickFix
There are also ways to define custom keywords, as resharper does, given by a custom markup and apply quickfixes to that.
PS: No i don't work at jetbrains. it's just that good :)
UPDATE:
potential VS Extension fix?
check this one out: MSDN Link Highlighting Text
I tried opening your github project but couldn't so i thought i'll just check msdn instead. it seems you are deriving from the wrong class to fulfill your needs?
MSDN keyword "Editors - Extending the Editor - Walkthrough: Highlighting Text"
I know SO wants code on the site, but msdn links going down is rather unlikely and with the given information the content can be found easily enough :)

I'm a bit late to the party, but hey, why not throw my 2 cents in.
As you've explained in your question, your project has two basic parts:
Finding the classes that implement IDisposable
Highlighting them
The first is by far the hardest, though not impossible. A word-list based approach is probably the simplest, though it should be possible with Roslyn to figure out on the fly which classes inherit IDisposible.
You could also always resort to loading the project's compiled .exe/.dll in the background after a build and figuring out what the types are there, but you'd still have to write some magic glue code to figure out what short class names in the code referred to what actual full-name classes in the assembly.
The second part, highlighting, is quite easy once you know how to do it (it helps that I've spent the last several months working full-time on extending VS). Of course, with Visual Studio, nothing is as simple as it looks (despite the efforts of Microsoft to try to make it user-friendly). So, I've built a sample extension that highlights just classes named "Stream" within C# files to get you started.
The relevant code is below, and the full project source is on GitHub). It starts with a classification-tagger provider:
[Export(typeof(ITaggerProvider))]
[ContentType("CSharp")]
[TagType(typeof(ClassificationTag))]
[Name("HighlightDisposableTagger")]
public class HighlightDisposableTaggerProvider : ITaggerProvider
{
[Import]
private IClassificationTypeRegistryService _classificationRegistry = null;
[Import]
private IClassifierAggregatorService _classifierAggregator = null;
private bool _reentrant;
public ITagger<T> CreateTagger<T>(ITextBuffer buffer) where T : ITag
{
if (_reentrant)
return null;
try {
_reentrant = true;
var classifier = _classifierAggregator.GetClassifier(buffer);
return new HighlightDisposableTagger(buffer, _classificationRegistry, classifier) as ITagger<T>;
}
finally {
_reentrant = false;
}
}
}
Then the tagger itself:
public class HighlightDisposableTagger : ITagger<ClassificationTag>
{
private const string DisposableFormatName = "HighlightDisposableFormat";
[Export]
[Name(DisposableFormatName)]
public static ClassificationTypeDefinition DisposableFormatType = null;
[Export(typeof(EditorFormatDefinition))]
[Name(DisposableFormatName)]
[ClassificationType(ClassificationTypeNames = DisposableFormatName)]
[UserVisible(true)]
public class DisposableFormatDefinition : ClassificationFormatDefinition
{
public DisposableFormatDefinition()
{
DisplayName = "Disposable Format";
ForegroundColor = Color.FromRgb(0xFF, 0x00, 0x00);
}
}
public event EventHandler<SnapshotSpanEventArgs> TagsChanged = delegate { };
private ITextBuffer _subjectBuffer;
private ClassificationTag _tag;
private IClassifier _classifier;
private bool _reentrant;
public HighlightDisposableTagger(ITextBuffer subjectBuffer, IClassificationTypeRegistryService typeService, IClassifier classifier)
{
_subjectBuffer = subjectBuffer;
var classificationType = typeService.GetClassificationType(DisposableFormatName);
_tag = new ClassificationTag(classificationType);
_classifier = classifier;
}
public IEnumerable<ITagSpan<ClassificationTag>> GetTags(NormalizedSnapshotSpanCollection spans)
{
if (_reentrant) {
return Enumerable.Empty<ITagSpan<ClassificationTag>>();
}
var tags = new List<ITagSpan<ClassificationTag>>();
try {
_reentrant = true;
foreach (var span in spans) {
if (span.IsEmpty)
continue;
foreach (var token in _classifier.GetClassificationSpans(span)) {
if (token.ClassificationType.IsOfType(/*PredefinedClassificationTypeNames.Identifier*/ "User Types")) {
// TODO: Somehow figure out if this refers to a class which implements IDisposable
if (token.Span.GetText() == "Stream") {
tags.Add(new TagSpan<ClassificationTag>(token.Span, _tag));
}
}
}
}
return tags;
}
finally {
_reentrant = false;
}
}
}
I've only tested this on VS2010, but it should work for VS2013 too (the only thing that might be different is the class classification name, but that's easy to discover with a well-placed breakpoint). I've never written an extension for VS2012, so I can't comment on that, but I know it's quite close to VS2013 in most respects.

So, one possible solution(I believe this one works):
1) Create your own content type which inherits from csharp.
2) Create new TextViewCreationListener which will swap out all "csharp" content types with your own one, thus potentially "disarming" all the other classifiers.
3) Register your classifier to handle your own content type.
Here is some of the code:
[Export(typeof(IVsTextViewCreationListener))]
[ContentType("csharp")]
[TextViewRole(PredefinedTextViewRoles.Editable)]
class TextViewCreationListener : IVsTextViewCreationListener {
internal readonly IVsEditorAdaptersFactoryService _adaptersFactory;
[Import] internal IContentTypeRegistryService ContentTypeRegistryService = null;
[ImportingConstructor]
public TextViewCreationListener(IVsEditorAdaptersFactoryService adaptersFactory) {
_adaptersFactory = adaptersFactory;
}
#region IVsTextViewCreationListener Members
public void VsTextViewCreated(VisualStudio.TextManager.Interop.IVsTextView textViewAdapter) {
var textView = _adaptersFactory.GetWpfTextView(textViewAdapter);
var myContent = ContentTypeRegistryService.GetContentType(MyContentType);
if(myContent == null)
{
ContentTypeRegistryService.AddContentType(MyContentType, new[] {"csharp"});
myContent = ContentTypeRegistryService.GetContentType(MyContentType);
}
// some kind of check if the content type is not already MyContentType.
textView.TextBuffer.ChangeContentType(myContent, null);
}
#endregion
}
And now, just modify your IClassifierProvider to register with your own content type, as such: [ContentType(MyContentType)]
Iin your own IClassifier, you can basically do your own calculation and once you think you can't handle the stuff, you could pass the control to other classifiers.
If you use MEF and import IClassifierAggregatorService, you can get a "MASTER-classifier" which will run all the logic for you. I haven't implemented it yet, but I've suggestes something similiar in the past, and it seemed to work. Alternatively you could maybe use [ImportMany] with List<IClassifier> and filter out the csharp ones?!

Separating Logging Code from C# Objects

Currently I have a custom built static logging class in C# that can be called with the following code:
EventLogger.Log(EventLogger.EventType.Application, string.Format("AddData request from {0}", ipAddress));
When this is called it simply writes to a defined log file specified in a configuration file.
However, being that I have to log many, many events, my code is starting to become hard to read because all of the logging messages.
Is there an established way to more or less separate logging code from objects and methods in a C# class so code doesn't become unruly?
Thank you all in advance for your help as this is something I have been struggling with lately.

I like the AOP Features, that PostSharp offers. In my opinion Loggin is an aspect of any kind of software. Logging isn't the main value an application should provide.
So in my case, PostSharp always was fine. Spring.NET has also an AOP module which could be used to achieve this.

The most commonly used technique I have seen employs AOP in one form or another.
PostSharp is one product that does IL weaving as a form of AOP, though not the only way to do AOP in .NET.

A solution to this is to use Aspect-oriented programming in which you can separate these concerns. This is a pretty complex/invasive change though, so I'm not sure if it's feasible in your situation.

I used to have a custom built logger but recently changed to TracerX. This provides a simple way to instrument the code with different levels of severity. Loggers can be created with names closely related to the class etc that you are working with
It has a separate Viewer with a lot of filtering capabilities including logger, severity and so on.
http://tracerx.codeplex.com/
There is an article on it here: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/TracerX.aspx

If your primary goal is to log function entry/exit points and occasional information in between, I've had good results with an Disposable logging object where the constructor traces the function entry, and Dispose() traces the exit. This allows calling code to simply wrap each method's code inside a single using statement. Methods are also provided for arbitrary logs in between. Here is a complete C# ETW event tracing class along with a function entry/exit wrapper:
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Diagnostics.Tracing;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
namespace MyExample
{
// This class traces function entry/exit
// Constructor is used to automatically log function entry.
// Dispose is used to automatically log function exit.
// use "using(FnTraceWrap x = new FnTraceWrap()){ function code }" pattern for function entry/exit tracing
public class FnTraceWrap : IDisposable
{
string methodName;
string className;
private bool _disposed = false;
public FnTraceWrap()
{
StackFrame frame;
MethodBase method;
frame = new StackFrame(1);
method = frame.GetMethod();
this.methodName = method.Name;
this.className = method.DeclaringType.Name;
MyEventSourceClass.Log.TraceEnter(this.className, this.methodName);
}
public void TraceMessage(string format, params object[] args)
{
string message = String.Format(format, args);
MyEventSourceClass.Log.TraceMessage(message);
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (!this._disposed)
{
this._disposed = true;
MyEventSourceClass.Log.TraceExit(this.className, this.methodName);
}
}
}
[EventSource(Name = "MyEventSource")]
sealed class MyEventSourceClass : EventSource
{
// Global singleton instance
public static MyEventSourceClass Log = new MyEventSourceClass();
private MyEventSourceClass()
{
}
[Event(1, Opcode = EventOpcode.Info, Level = EventLevel.Informational)]
public void TraceMessage(string message)
{
WriteEvent(1, message);
}
[Event(2, Message = "{0}({1}) - {2}: {3}", Opcode = EventOpcode.Info, Level = EventLevel.Informational)]
public void TraceCodeLine([CallerFilePath] string filePath = "",
[CallerLineNumber] int line = 0,
[CallerMemberName] string memberName = "", string message = "")
{
WriteEvent(2, filePath, line, memberName, message);
}
// Function-level entry and exit tracing
[Event(3, Message = "Entering {0}.{1}", Opcode = EventOpcode.Start, Level = EventLevel.Informational)]
public void TraceEnter(string className, string methodName)
{
WriteEvent(3, className, methodName);
}
[Event(4, Message = "Exiting {0}.{1}", Opcode = EventOpcode.Stop, Level = EventLevel.Informational)]
public void TraceExit(string className, string methodName)
{
WriteEvent(4, className, methodName);
}
}
}
Code that uses it will look something like this:
public void DoWork(string foo)
{
using (FnTraceWrap fnTrace = new FnTraceWrap())
{
fnTrace.TraceMessage("Doing work on {0}.", foo);
/*
code ...
*/
}
}

To make the code readable, only log what you really need to (info/warning/error). Log debug messages during development, but remove most when you are finished. For trace logging, use
AOP to log simple things like method entry/exit (if you feel you need that kind of granularity).
Example:
public int SomeMethod(int arg)
{
Log.Trace("SomeClass.SomeMethod({0}), entering",arg); // A
if (arg < 0)
{
arg = -arg;
Log.Warn("Negative arg {0} was corrected", arg); // B
}
Log.Trace("SomeClass.SomeMethod({0}), returning.",arg); // C
return 2*arg;
}
In this example, the only necessary log statement is B. The log statements A and C are boilerplate, logging that you can leave to PostSharp to insert for you instead.
Also: in your example you can see that there is some form of "Action X invoked by Y", which suggests that a lot of your code could in fact be moved up to a higher level (e.g. Command/Filter).
Your proliferation of logging statements could be telling you something: that some form of design pattern could be used, which could also centralize a lot of the logging.
void DoSomething(Command command, User user)
{
Log.Info("Command {0} invoked by {1}", command, user);
command.Process(user);
}

I think it is a good option to implement something similar to filters in ASP.NET MVC. This is implement with the help of attributes and reflection. You mark every method you want to log in a certain way and enjoy. I suppose there might be a better way to do it, may be with the help of Observer pattern or something but as long as I thought about it I couldn't think of something better.
Basically such problems are called cross-cutting concerns and can be tackled with the help of AOP.
I also think that some interesting inheritance schema can be applied with log entities at the base but I would go for filters

Creating extension method using CodeDOM

I'm trying to create an extension method using CodeDOM. There doesn't seem to be any support for them and using ExtensionAttribute (which C# uses internally to mark extension methods) is not allowed.
It's possible to use a trick to specify the this modifier, but how do I make the containing class static, so that the code actually compiles?
Since static is a C# concept, it's not exposed through the CodeDOM API. And setting TypeAttributes to TypeAttributes.Abstract | TypeAttributes.Sealed | TypeAttributes.Public doesn't work, because
an abstract class cannot be sealed or static
How do I make the extension method to compile?

I'm pretty sure you're looking for:
var staticClass = new CodeTypeDeclaration("Extensions")
{
Attributes = MemberAttributes.Public|MemberAttributes.Static
};
However, this appears not to work. Interestingly enough:
provider.Supports(GeneratorSupport.StaticConstructors);
// True
provider.Supports(GeneratorSupport.PublicStaticMembers);
// True
But yet when you go and output it, no changes even though the Attributes property clearly changes from 0x00005002 to 0x00006003.
Per Microsoft Connect this is not possible:
Thanks for reporting this. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we can support static classes for CodeDom.
The reason is that one of the design goals of CodeDom is to be language-independent, so that any code generated for one language can easily be generated for a different language. While static classes are used often in C#, VB does not support them. Therefore, adding support for static classes will mean that some code that can compile for C# won't be compilable for VB, which goes against our goals.
While we can't act on this issue, we ask that you please continue to provide feedback in the future to help us improve.
A dirty workaround:
var type = new CodeTypeDeclaration("Extensions");
type.Attributes = MemberAttributes.Public;
type.StartDirectives.Add(
new CodeRegionDirective(CodeRegionMode.Start, "\nstatic"));
type.EndDirectives.Add(
new CodeRegionDirective(CodeRegionMode.End, String.Empty));
Produces:
#region
static
public class Extensions
{
}
#endregion
Which compiles.

Instead of compiling the CodeCompileUnit directly, you could get the source code, replace class Extensions with static class Extensions and compile that code.

Cleaned up the hack provided by sixlettervariables a little: placed it into a static method, as mentioned in the discussion.
public static void MarkAsStaticClassWithExtensionMethods(this CodeTypeDeclaration class_)
{
class_.Attributes = MemberAttributes.Public;
class_.StartDirectives.Add(new CodeRegionDirective(
CodeRegionMode.Start, Environment.NewLine + "\tstatic"));
class_.EndDirectives.Add(new CodeRegionDirective(
CodeRegionMode.End, string.Empty));
}

You can get your code to compile exactly how your want it by converting it directly into a string, and then hacking it:
private static CodeSnippetTypeMember CreateStaticClass(CodeTypeDeclaration type)
{
var provider = CodeDomProvider.CreateProvider("CSharp");
using (var sourceWriter = new StringWriter())
using (var tabbedWriter = new IndentedTextWriter(sourceWriter, "\t"))
{
tabbedWriter.Indent = 2;
provider.GenerateCodeFromType(type, tabbedWriter, new CodeGeneratorOptions()
{
BracingStyle = "C",
IndentString = "\t"
});
return new CodeSnippetTypeMember("\t\t" + sourceWriter.ToString().Replace("public class", "public static class"));
}
}

Caching attribute for method?

Maybe this is dreaming, but is it possible to create an attribute that caches the output of a function (say, in HttpRuntime.Cache) and returns the value from the cache instead of actually executing the function when the parameters to the function are the same?
When I say function, I'm talking about any function, whether it fetches data from a DB, whether it adds two integers, or whether it spits out the content of a file. Any function.

Your best bet is Postsharp. I have no idea if they have what you need, but that's certainly worth checking. By the way, make sure to publish the answer here if you find one.
EDIT: also, googling "postsharp caching" gives some links, like this one: Caching with C#, AOP and PostSharp
UPDATE: I recently stumbled upon this article: Introducing Attribute Based Caching. It describes a postsharp-based library on http://cache.codeplex.com/ if you are still looking for a solution.

I have just the same problem - I have multiply expensive methods in my app and it is necessary for me to cache those results. Some time ago I just copy-pasted similar code but then I decided to factor this logic out of my domain.
This is how I did it before:
static List<News> _topNews = null;
static DateTime _topNewsLastUpdateTime = DateTime.MinValue;
const int CacheTime = 5; // In minutes
public IList<News> GetTopNews()
{
if (_topNewsLastUpdateTime.AddMinutes(CacheTime) < DateTime.Now)
{
_topNews = GetList(TopNewsCount);
}
return _topNews;
}
And that is how I can write it now:
public IList<News> GetTopNews()
{
return Cacher.GetFromCache(() => GetList(TopNewsCount));
}
Cacher - is a simple helper class, here it is:
public static class Cacher
{
const int CacheTime = 5; // In minutes
static Dictionary<long, CacheItem> _cachedResults = new Dictionary<long, CacheItem>();
public static T GetFromCache<T>(Func<T> action)
{
long code = action.GetHashCode();
if (!_cachedResults.ContainsKey(code))
{
lock (_cachedResults)
{
if (!_cachedResults.ContainsKey(code))
{
_cachedResults.Add(code, new CacheItem { LastUpdateTime = DateTime.MinValue });
}
}
}
CacheItem item = _cachedResults[code];
if (item.LastUpdateTime.AddMinutes(CacheTime) >= DateTime.Now)
{
return (T)item.Result;
}
T result = action();
_cachedResults[code] = new CacheItem
{
LastUpdateTime = DateTime.Now,
Result = result
};
return result;
}
}
class CacheItem
{
public DateTime LastUpdateTime { get; set; }
public object Result { get; set; }
}
A few words about Cacher. You might notice that I don't use Monitor.Enter() ( lock(...) ) while computing results. It's because copying CacheItem pointer ( return (T)_cachedResults[code].Result; line) is thread safe operation - it is performed by only one stroke. Also it is ok if more than one thread will change this pointer at the same time - they all will be valid.

You could add a dictionary to your class using a comma separated string including the function name as the key, and the result as the value. Then when your functions can check the dictionary for the existence of that value. Save the dictionary in the cache so that it exists for all users.

PostSharp is your one stop shop for this if you want to create a [Cache] attribute (or similar) that you can stick on any method anywhere. Previously when I used PostSharp I could never get past how slow it made my builds (this was back in 2007ish, so this might not be relevant anymore).
An alternate solution is to look into using Render.Partial with ASP.NET MVC in combination with OutputCaching. This is a great solution for serving html for widgets / page regions.
Another solution that would be with MVC would be to implement your [Cache] attribute as an ActionFilterAttribute. This would allow you to take a controller method and tag it to be cached. It would only work for controller methods since the AOP magic only can occur with the ActionFilterAttributes during the MVC pipeline.
Implementing AOP through ActionFilterAttribute has evolved to be the goto solution for my shop.

AFAIK, frankly, no.
But this would be quite an undertaking to implement within the framework in order for it to work generically for everybody in all circumstances, anyway - you could, however, tailor something quite sufficient to needs by simply (where simplicity is relative to needs, obviously) using abstraction, inheritance and the existing ASP.NET Cache.

If you don't need attribute configuration but accept code configuration, maybe MbCache is what you're looking for?