We Keep Coding

Castle Windsor Abstract Factory

I'm trying to understand how to use TypedFactoryFacility to create an abstract factory, and I have it working at a basic level, however I don't fully understand how to scale it with runtime dependencies
Suppose I have a service that needs to be created at runtime:
public interface IRuntimeService {
void DoThing();
}
with the following implementation
public class RuntimeService : IRuntimeService {
public void DoThing() {
// Do some work
}
}
To create my IRuntimeService, I've created an abstract factory
public interface IRuntimeServiceFactory {
IRuntimeService CreateService();
}
In my Castle installer, I'm using the TypedFactoryFacility to register my class and abstract factory.
public class TypeInstaller : IWindsorInstaller {
public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store) {
container.AddFacility<TypedFactoryFacility>();
container.Register(Component.For<IRuntimeService>().ImplementedBy<RuntimeService>());
container.Register(Component.For<IRuntimeServiceFactory>().AsFactory());
}
Then in my class that will be using the service, I can use the factory to create new service instances at runtime.
var myService = m_ServiceFactory.CreateService();
Everything above works perfectly, however I'm running into a problem when my RuntimeService class needs to be injected with a dependency chain itself that include runtime parameters.
To expand the example above, suppose I have a new runtime dependency
public interface IRuntimeDependency {
void DoWork();
}
implemented by a class that takes a runtime string value through the constructor
public class RuntimeDependency : IRuntimeDependency {
private readonly string m_Param;
public RuntimeDependency(string param) {
m_Param = param;
}
public void DoWork() {
// Do work involving the param
}
}
And the previously defined service class now needs a reference to the dependency
public class RuntimeService : IRuntimeService {
private readonly IRuntimeDependency m_Dep;
public RuntimeService(IRuntimeDependency dep) {
m_Dep = dep;
}
public void DoThing() {
// Do some work involving the dependency
m_Dep.DoWork();
}
}
How do I now I create instances of my service using the TypedFactoryFacility?
I would expect do just be able to change my factory method to look like
IRuntimeService CreateService(string param);
but Windsor throws an error 'Could not resolve non-optional dependency for parameter 'param' type 'System.String'.
Windsor knows how to create an IRuntimeDependency if I give it a string, and it knows how to create a IRuntimeService if I give it the dependency, so why can't it directly create a IRuntimeService with the string param?
I can make it work by having two distinct factory methods
IRuntimeService CreateService(IRuntimeDependency dep);
IRuntimeDependency CreateDependency(string param);
and creating the dependency, manually myself
var dep = m_ServiceFactory.CreateDependency(param);
var myService = m_ServiceFactory.CreateService(dep );
^^^This works, but the whole point of using a container is so that it will take care of assembling new objects for me. This is a relatively simple example involving only one dependency, but it would easily grow out of control with a more complex object graph.
I could of course create my own factory implementations, but that also nullifies the benefit of using the TypedFactoryFacility which is supposed to create the abstract factory implementations for you. I have a hard time believing there's not an existing solution to this problem but the Windsor examples don't contain any chained run-time dependencies.
I don't think using a FactoryComponentSelector is the correct approach because there's only one possible path to create the RuntimeService instance. It should be able to auto-resolve.

In many or most cases, an object resolved by the container depends on implementations of other interfaces which are also resolved by the container. So as long as all of the interfaces have registered implementations, the container can resolve the entire dependency chain.
But in this case RuntimeDependency depends on a string, which isn't something the container can resolve.
public RuntimeDependency(string param) {
m_Param = param;
}
In this case you can use the DependsOn method to explicitly provide a value to fulfill that dependency.
container.Register(Component.For<IRuntimeDependency, RuntimeDependency>()
.DependsOn(Dependency.OnValue("param","whatEverTheValueIs")));
That value can, of course, come from configuration or wherever else. I use this a lot with SQL connection strings.

It is possible using DynamicParameters.
container.Register(Component.For<IRuntimeService>()
.ImplementedBy<RuntimeService>()
.LifestyleTransient()
.DynamicParameters((k, d) => {
d["dep"] = new RuntimeDependency((string)d["param"]);
}));
Keep in mind that the dictionary keys have to match the parameter names in the CreateService method and RuntimeService constructor.
Edit: You should also make it LifestyleTransient if you intend to create a new instance each time the factory method is called. (The default is singleton)

It seems that what I am asking for is not possible by design.
See this other SO answer.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/3905496/2029835

Pass a dependency instance to a factory method parameter to make Ninject use it within the resolution

I have an abstract factory which creates some service represented by IService interface. In the factory I have two Create methods, because at one of them I allow the consumer to pass an existing IServiceLogger instance to be used by the constructed service tree.
public interface IMyServiceFactory {
IMyService Create(IServiceLogger loggerInstance);
IMyService Create();
}
Because an IServiceLogger should be shared among the service tree, I use the InCallScope when binding it to a concrete implementation.
How can I implement this scenario with Ninject? I've tried the following approaches.
1. Manually create a factory implementation
internal class MyServiceFactory : IMyServiceFactory {
private IResolutionRoot _kernel;
public MyServiceFactory
public IMyService Create(IServiceLogger loggerInstance) {
// what should go here? how can I pass the existing instance to Ninject Get method and make Ninject to use it for the whole resolution tree, just as it were created by Ninject and used as InCallScope?
}
// this one is trivial...
pulbic IMyService Create() {
return _kernel.Get<IMyService>();
}
}
UPDATE
Actually I've found a messy and not too safe way for this. I can get the current bindings via GetBindings, then Rebind IServiceLogger ToConstant, then Get the IMyService instance, and finally restore the original bindings with AddBinding. I don't like it, it feels stinky and what's worse, it's not thread-safe, because another thread can request for a IMyService in the middle of this code and hence use the local temporary binding.
2. Use Ninject.Extensions.Factory
Just use the ToFactory binding, but that's not working, because it just tries to use the parameter as a simple constructor argument (if applicable), and not as an object for the whole resolution tree.

I would give more control to the Kernel of Ninject and do not create a class for the factory at all.
And use Func binding in Ninject like this:
Bind<Func<IMyService>>().ToMethod(s => CreateService);
By binding of the ILoggerService or not binding this you can controll centrally whether you have logger or not in your service.(try by just comment it out)
Here implementation of the Bootstrapper:
public class Bootstrapper
{
private IKernel _kernel = new StandardKernel();
public Bootstrapper()
{
_kernel.Bind<MyStuff>().ToSelf();
_kernel.Bind<IServiceLogger>().To<ServiceLogger>();
_kernel.Bind<IMyService>().To<MyService>();
_kernel.Bind<Func<IMyService>>().ToMethod(s => CreateService);
}
public IKernel Kernel
{
get
{
return _kernel;
}
set
{
_kernel = value;
}
}
private IMyService CreateService()
{
if(_kernel.GetBindings(typeof(IServiceLogger)).Any())
{
return _kernel.Get<IMyService>(new ConstructorArgument("logger", _kernel.Get<IServiceLogger>()));
}
return _kernel.Get<IMyService>();
}
}
Implementation of consumer class for the factory:
internal class MyStuff
{
private readonly Func<IMyService> _myServiceFactory;
public MyStuff(Func<IMyService> myServiceFactory)
{
_myServiceFactory = myServiceFactory;
_myServiceFactory.Invoke();
}
}
Simple implementation of MyService:
internal class MyService
:IMyService
{
public MyService()
{
Console.WriteLine("with no parameters");
}
public MyService(IServiceLogger logger)
{
Console.WriteLine("with logger parameters");
}
}
Simple ServiceLogger:
internal class ServiceLogger
:IServiceLogger
{
public ServiceLogger()
{
}
}
internal interface IServiceLogger
{
}

IMPORTANT UPDATE
While my original answer gave me a working solution, by an accidental InteliSense navigation I've just found that there is a built-in tool for exactly this issue. I just have to use the built-in TypeMatchingArgumentInheritanceInstanceProvider which does this, and even more, because there are no more needs for naming conventions due to the parameter type matching.
It would be good to have a more detailed documentation about these options, or maybe it's just me who can't find it currently.
ORIGINAL ANSWER
I tried a few ways, and ended up with a slightly different, kind of a convention based approach utilizing Ninject's context parameter inheritance.
The convention is used at constructor argument naming through the dependency tree. For example whenever an IServiceLogger instance is injected to a service class, the argument should be called serviceLogger.
With the above convention in mind, I've tested the following approach. Firstly I've implemented a custom instance provider for the factory extension. This custom provider overrides the mechanism for creating constructor parameters for the context to let the developer specify several named arguments which should be set as inherited. This way all the parameters with the specified names will inherit through the whole request graph during the get operation.
public class ParameterInheritingInstanceProvider : StandardInstanceProvider
{
private readonly List<string> _parametersToInherit = new List<string>();
public ParameterInheritingInstanceProvider(params string[] parametersToInherit)
{
_parametersToInherit.AddRange(parametersToInherit);
}
protected override IConstructorArgument[] GetConstructorArguments(MethodInfo methodInfo, object[] arguments)
{
var parameters = methodInfo.GetParameters();
var constructorArgumentArray = new IConstructorArgument[parameters.Length];
for (var i = 0; i < parameters.Length; ++i)
constructorArgumentArray[i] = new ConstructorArgument(parameters[i].Name, arguments[i], _parametersToInherit.Contains(parameters[i].Name));
return constructorArgumentArray;
}
}
Then after at binding configuration I just threw it in with the corresponding parameter name.
kernel.Bind<IMyServiceFactory>().ToFactory(() => new ParameterInheritingInstanceProvider("serviceLogger"));
Finally I reviewed parameter naming, and for exampled changed loggerInstance in the factory interface to serviceLogger to match the convention.
This solution is still not the nicest one as it has several limitations.
It is error prone. One can make bugs which are hard to track by not keeping the naming convention, because currently it silently fails if the convention does not match. This could be improved probably, I'll think about it later.
It handles only constructor injection, however this should not be a big issue as that's the suggested technique. For example I almost never do other kind of injections.

I realise this was asked a long time ago but I was looking to do the same sort of thing myself and finally worked out that you can use the IParameter array passed to the Get() method to specify a ContructorArgument to use only for the current Get() call. This allowed me to use a specific constructor value when creating a Hangfire Job allowing the Hangfire job to use a different database connection on each invocation if required.
EnvironmentName forcedEnv = new EnvironmentName() { Name = dbName };
// For this instantiation, set the 'envName' parameter to be the one we've specified for this job
var instance = ResolutionExtensions.Get((IResolutionRoot) _kernel, jobType,
new IParameter[] {new ConstructorArgument("envName", forcedEnv, true)});
return instance;
By setting the shouldInherit value to true you can ensure the value gets passed down the resolution chain. So it get's passed to any objects in the dependency tree that use that argument (but only for this particular instantiation).

StructureMap - Circular Dependencies and Lazy Initialization of Setter Properties

So we have ran into what seems like a very common issue with StructureMap and IoC containers in general I assume. Bidirectiona/Circuar dependencies.
Given the following code, it is currently causing a circular dependency since we have it 'autowiring' properties.
public class ServiceA:IServiceA
{
public IServiceB ServiceBDependency {get;set;}
}
public class ServiceB:IServiceB
{
public IServiceA ServiceADependency {get;set;}
}
I see the 'dependency' of each of these on eachother, however, I feel that as a property, they are not true dependencies which is what separates them from using constructor injection.
It seems that there should be a way for these services to be resolved...and then have the properties injected after the objects have been created?
I know of various ways to get around this, including the true clean way of rearchitecting my services, but i am curious as to what options I have with instantiation and service registration with StructureMap. It seems like a fairly common issue that would need a solution.

I'd like to show you my approach. I am using only the setter injection. And we often have many objcets referencing each other, in our web app. E.g. IUserFacade requires IUserState on user creation while IUserState requires IUserFacade on userState deletion (to check for constraint).
e.g.:
public interface IUserFacade
{
... // User facade Add, Update, Delete
IUserStateFacade { set; }
}
public interface IUserStateFacade
{
...
IUserFacade { set; }
}
In reality, we have many objects with cross references, and even more complicated. And it would really be very costy, if all the referenced objects should be created each time, even if not used during the request. We need the "lazy", the proxy objects to be placed in the setters.
The way how to do it, is a mix of the: 1) StructureMap (IoC top) and 2) Castle (proxying top) libraries. Below I will show some snippets of objects needed for this solution. More could be found inside open source project Catharsis
Wrapper. This object would be injected into each Property by SM (StructureMap) instead of real implementor. It is the sleeping implementation. It is waiting for a first call. If it will never happen (IUserFacade is deleting user, no need to access referenced IUserStateFacade during such request) this wrapper will sleep for ever (request). Once touched, SM will create the real object and Wrapper will pass all calls to that.
The Castle interceptor:
public class Wrapper : IInterceptor
{
object _lazy;
protected readonly Type Type;
public Wrapper(Type type)
{
Type = type;
}
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
if (_lazy.IsNull()) // lazily instantiate the instance
{
_lazy = ObjectFactory.GetInstance(Type);
}
try
{
var method = invocation.Method;
if (method.ContainsGenericParameters)
{
method = method.MakeGenericMethod(invocation.GenericArguments);
}
invocation.ReturnValue = method.Invoke(_lazy, invocation.Arguments);
}
catch (TargetInvocationException ex)
{
// PublishingManager.Publish(.... // publish exception
throw;
}
}
}
ProxyInstance. Now, we need an object, clear and understandable to SM. That object will be mapped to all interfaces (IUserFacade...) Instead of returning implementation of the UserFacade.
We can also use our custom AOP filters here.
This ProxyInstance will be provided with the real implementor type, and building up the Wrapper.
The StructureMap Instance:
public class ProxyInstance : Instance
{
protected readonly ProxyGenerator Factory = new ProxyGenerator();
protected readonly Type ConcreteType;
public ProxyInstance(Type type)
{
ConcreteType = type; // the type for our Wrapper, the real implementation
}
protected override object build(Type pluginType, BuildSession session)
{
var aopFilters =
// my custom way how to inject more AOP filters
AopFilterManager.GetFilters()
// the core for us, one of the interceptors is our Wrapper
.Union(new[] { new Wrapper(ConcreteType) })
.ToArray();
// Castle will emit a proxy for us, but the Wrapper will do the job
var proxy = Factory
.CreateClassProxy(ConcreteType, AopFilterManager.AopOptions, aopFilters);
return proxy;
}
And now just use some standard way how to map it in the SM (I am using custom ProxyConvention but it is out of the scope here). Let's use simplified explicit mapping:
registry
.For<IUserFacade>()
.HybridHttpOrThreadLocalScoped()
.Use(new ProxyInstance(typeof(UserFacade)));
...
Also, each of our objects created via SM, implements IService. So, the default setter injection could be set like this:
registry.SetAllProperties
(
set => set.TypeMatches
(
type => type
.GetInterfaces()
.Any(i => i.IsEquivalentTo(typeof(IService)))
)
);
From that moment, when we need to work with a IUserFacade (the direct ObjectFactory call, or accessed via Wrapper), we recieve the real implementor. All its properties (setter injection) will be pre-populated with our ProxyInstance / Wrapper.
If any of these properties is accessed, e.g. IUserStateFacade the same (discribed above for IUserFacade) will happen again.
Because the Lifecycle is Thread or Request based, we have only one implementor in runtime/web request
Because we do inject the Wrappers while using setter injection, no issues with circular infinite loops. Only the first level is injected each time

How to avoid Service Locator Anti-Pattern?

I'm trying to remove a Service Locator from an abstract base class, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. Here is a psuedo-example of what I've got:
public abstract class MyController : Controller
{
protected IKernel kernel;
public MyController(IKernel kernel) { this.kernel = kernel); }
protected void DoActions(Type[] types)
{
MySpecialResolver resolver = new MySpecialResolver(kernel);
foreach(var type in types)
{
IMyServiceInterface instance = resolver.Get(type);
instance.DoAction();
}
}
}
The problem with this is that the instanciator of a derived class doesn't know what bindings the kernel must have in order to keep MySpecialResolver from throwing an exception.
This might be intrinsicly intractable because I don't know from here which types I'll have to resolve. The derived classes are responsible for creating the types parameter, but they aren't hardcoded anywhere. (The types are based on the presence of attributes deep within the derived class's composition hierarchy.)
I've trying to fix this with lazy loading delegates, but so far I haven't come up with a clean solution.
Update
There are really two issues here, one is that the IoC container is passed to the controller, acting as a service locator. This is easy to remove--you can move the location up or down the call stack using all sorts of techniques.
The second issue is the difficult one, how can you ensure that the controller has the necessary services when the requirements aren't exposed until runtime. It should have been obvious from the start: you can't! You will always be dependent upon either the state of the service locator or contents of a collection. In this particular case no amount of fiddling will ever resolve the problem described in this article with staticly typed dependencies. I think that what I'm going to end up doing is passing a Lazy array into the controller constructor and throwing an exception if a required dependency is missing.

I agree with #chrisichris and #Mark Seemann.
Ditch the kernel from the controller. I'd switch your resolver composition a little bit so that your controller can remove the dependency on the IoC container and allow the resolver to be the only item that worries about the IoC container.
Then I would let the resolver get passed into the constructor of the controller. This will allow your controller to be far more testable.
For example:
public interface IMyServiceResolver
{
List<IMyServiceInterface> Resolve(Type[] types);
}
public class NinjectMyServiceResolver : IMyServiceResolver
{
private IKernal container = null;
public NinjectMyServiceResolver(IKernal container)
{
this.container = container;
}
public List<IMyServiceInterface> Resolve(Type[] types)
{
List<IMyServiceInterface> services = new List<IMyServiceInterface>();
foreach(var type in types)
{
IMyServiceInterface instance = container.Get(type);
services.Add(instance);
}
return services;
}
}
public abstract class MyController : Controller
{
private IMyServiceResolver resolver = null;
public MyController(IMyServiceResolver resolver)
{
this.resolver = resolver;
}
protected void DoActions(Type[] types)
{
var services = resolver.Resolve(types);
foreach(var service in services)
{
service.DoAction();
}
}
}
Now your controller isn't coupled to a specific IoC container. Also your controller is much more testable since you can mock the resolvers and not require an IoC container at all for your tests.
Alternatively, if you don't get to control when a controller is instantiated, you can modify it slightly:
public abstract class MyController : Controller
{
private static IMyServiceResolver resolver = null;
public static InitializeResolver(IMyServiceResolver resolver)
{
MyController.resolver = resolver;
}
public MyController()
{
// Now we support a default constructor
// since maybe someone else is instantiating this type
// that we don't control.
}
protected void DoActions(Type[] types)
{
var services = resolver.Resolve(types);
foreach(var service in services)
{
service.DoAction();
}
}
}
You would then call this at your application start up to initialize the resolver:
MyController.InitializeResolver(new NinjectMyServiceResolver(kernal));
We did this to handle elements created in XAML who require dependencies resolved but we wanted to remove Service Locator like requests.
Please excuse any syntactical errors :)
I'm writing a blog post series on the topic of refactoring an MVVM application with Service Locator calls in the view models you might find interesting. Part 2 is coming soon :)
http://kellabyte.com/2011/07/24/refactoring-to-improve-maintainability-and-blendability-using-ioc-part-1-view-models/

Maybe you should just do away the Kernel, Types and MySpecialResolver and let the subclasses call DoActions with the IMyServiceInterface instances they need as argument directly. And let the subclasses decide how they get to these instances - they should know best (or in case they don't know which exactly the one who ever decides which instances of IMyServiceInterface are needed)

I would have liked to have a bit more information before posting this answer, but Kelly put me on the spot. :) Telling me to put my code where my mouth is, so to speak.
Like I said in my comment to Kelly, I disagree with moving the resolver/locator from a static implementation to an injected implementation. I agree with ChrisChris that the dependencies the derived type needs should be resolved in that class and not delegated to the base class.
That said, here is how I would remove the service location...
Create Command Interface
First of all I would create a command interface for the specific implementation. In this case the types sent with the DoActions method are generated from attributes, so I would create an IAttributeCommand. I am adding a Matches method to the command in order to declare the command for use by certain types.
public interface IAttributeCommand
{
bool Matches(Type type);
void Execute();
}
Add Command Implementations
To implement the interface, I pass in the specific dependencies I need to execute my command (to be resolved by my container). I add a predicate to my Matches method, and define my Execute behavior.
public class MyTypeAttributeCommand : IAttributeCommand
{
MyDependency dependency;
SomeOtherDependency otherDependency;
public MyTypeAttributeCommand (MyDependency dependency, ISomeOtherDependency otherDependency)
{
this.dependency = dependency;
this.otherDependency = otherDependency
}
public bool Matches(Type type)
{
return type==typeof(MyType)
}
public void Execute()
{
// do action using dependency/dependencies
}
}
Register Commands with Container
In StructureMap (use your favorite container), I would register the array like so:
Scan(s=>
{
s.AssembliesFromApplicationBaseDirectory();
s.AddAllTypesOf<IAttributeCommand>();
s.WithDefaultConventions();
}
Select and Execute Commands Based on Type
Finally, on the base class, I define an IAttributeCommand array in my constructor arguments to be injected by the IOC container. When the derived type passes in the types array, I will execute the correct command based on the predicate.
public abstract class MyController : Controller
{
protected IAttributeCommand[] commands;
public MyController(IAttributeCommand[] commands) { this.commands = commands); }
protected void DoActions(Type[] types)
{
foreach(var type in types)
{
var command = commands.FirstOrDefault(x=>x.Matches(type));
if (command==null) continue;
command.Execute();
}
}
}
If you multiple commands can handle one type, you can change the implementation: commands.Where(x=>x.Matches(type)).ToList().ForEach(Execute);
The effect is the same, but there is a subtle difference in how the class is constructed. The class has no coupling to an IOC container and there is no service location. The implementation is more testable as the class can be constructed with its real dependencies, with no need to wire up a container/resolver.

Dispose components by MEF container?

I use MEF to map interface to implementation class as a way of DI. For example, I use the Import attribute for an interface, and Export for implementation class. My understanding is that the MEF framework will create the implementation class instances and hold them in MEF's container for use or auto-injection.
Some of my implementation classes implement IDispose interface. Since instances are created by MEF, I think I should let the MEF to call components' Dispose method if they are disposable when the MEF is out. For example, in my application, I hold a reference to the MEF's container. When the application terminates, I call the Dispose method of the container. The problem is that my components' Dispose is never called.
Here are some example codes about the import and export mapping:
[Import]
private IMyInterface IComponent1 { get; set; }
....
[Export]
private IMyInterface Component {
get {
var instance = new MyImplemetation();
....
return instance;
}
}
....
There many other import and export definitions for other mappings in the similar way. I construct mappings in this way so that the MEF has the knowledge of the relationships and the way how to create the mapped instances. Here are some codes in my application to load mappings by using AssemblyCatalog:
var catalog = new AggregateCatalog();
catalog.Add (new AssemblyCatalog(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
var batch = new CompositionBatch();
batch.AddPart(catalog);
// MEF container has all the mappings
var container = new CompositionContainer(catalog);
....
// Get instance from container
var instance = container.GetExportedValue<IMyInterface>();
// my instance CTOR has a contructor with several other
// implementation instances injected by interface
// instance starts to do its job and coordinates others ...
instance.Start();
....
// Finally the job is done.
// Dispose the container explicitly there.
container.Dispose();
// But my components are never disposed
// this results some connections not being closed
// file streams not being closed...
Here the instance has many other components injected through CTOR by the MEF. Those components also contain other components which are injected by the MEF. The problem is that it is really hard to make decision when to dispose components since some instances are shared. If I called Dispose on one, this would cause others not being able to use it. As you can see in this picture, instances are created by the MEF and injected to my application classes. Each component should not have any knowledge of others, and it should use injected components to do the job.
I am not sure where/how I should instruct the MEF to call Dispose on components when the application terminates or the container is disposed? Should I call the Dispose on components? I don't think that is right since the MEF creates them and inject them into clients as required. The clients should not call their Dispose when finishing their jobs.

MEF does manage the lifetime of the components it creates. It looks like the problem in your example is that the object you want disposed is not actually created by MEF. Perhaps you want to do something like this:
public class ComponentExporter : IDisposable
{
private IMyInterface _component;
[Export]
public IMyInterface Component
{
get
{
if (_component != null)
{
_component = new MyImplementation();
// ...
}
return _component;
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_component != null)
{
_component.Dispose();
}
}
}
ComponentExporter is the class actually created by MEF, and if it implements IDisposable then MEF will dispose it with the container. In this example ComponentExporter disposes the created component when it is dispose, which is likely what you want.
Of course it would be easier if you just put the export on the MyImplementation class directly. I assume you have some reason for not doing that, but this is how it would look:
[Export(typeof(IMyInterface))]
public class MyImplementation : IMyInterface, IDisposable
{
// ...
}
A few other notes on your code: You probably don't need to add the catalog to the container via the batch, unless you are importing it somewhere and modifying it from parts inside the container. And if you happen to be processing many requests and are concerned about performance, you should only create the AssemblyCatalog once, and then use the same one for all requests.

Daniel is right. I defined a relationships of Import and Export as properties in my mapping classes. I loaded them as ComposablePartCatalog to MEF's container so that MEF can magically fetches corresponding instances on fly. It is within the mapping classes that I have some codes to new instances. Therefore, I have to find a way to let MEF to call back to those mapping classes to dispose the created resources when MEF is out of a process.
I like Daniel's suggestion to introduce a class for my Export part. Since all my DI mappings are defined in the way of properties (getter and setters), I created a base class like this:
public class ComponentExporterBase: IDisposable {
private List<IDisposable> _list;
public ComponentExporterBase() {
_list = new List<IDisposable>();
}
protect void Add(IDisposable obj) {
_list.Add(obj);
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) {
if (disposing) {
foreach(var obj in _list) {
obj.Dispose();
}
_list.Clear();
}
}
public void Dispose() {
Dispose(true);
}
}
With this base class, my mapping classes will be able to let MEF to do the disposing job. For example, here is one example:
internal class MyDIMappingClass : ComponentExporterBase {
[Import]
private IDataReader _dataReader { get; set; }
[Export]
private IController {
get {
var reader = _dataReader;
var instance = new MyMainController(reader);
base.Add(instance);
return instance;
}
...
}
All my mapping classes are defined in the similar way, and they are much cleaner. The basic principle is that instances or resources which are created within a class should be disposed within the class, but not injected instances. In this way, I don't need to clean up any injected instances by MEF any more, as in this example:
public class MyMainController : IController {
private IDataReader _dataReader;
// dataReader is injected through CTOR
public MyMainControler(IDataReader dataReader) {
_dataReader = dataReader;
...
}
...
public void Dispose() {
// dispose only resources created in this class
// _dataReader is not disposed here or within the class!
...}
}
By the way, I like to use properties as my imports and exports since the attributes have nothing to do a class' business logic. In other many cases, some classes are from third parties and I don't have access to their source codes to mark them as export.