We Keep Coding

Make sure that one static class is created before the other

I am developing a C#/WPF/MVVM/UWP app which uses a ViewModelLocator which looks like this:
public class ViewModelLocator
{
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Performance",
"CA1822:MarkMembersAsStatic",
Justification = "This non-static member is needed for data binding purposes.")]
public MainPageViewModel MainPage
{
get
{
return ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<MainPageViewModel>();
}
}
static ViewModelLocator()
{
// DEBUG LINE: var test = Views.ViewLocator.MainPageKey;
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => SimpleIoc.Default);
if (ViewModelBase.IsInDesignModeStatic)
{
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<IDataService, Design.DesignDataService>();
}
else
{
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<IDataService, DataService>();
}
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<MainPageViewModel>();
}
}
I have another class, a ViewLocator, for navigation purposes which looks like this:
public class ViewLocator
{
public static readonly string MainPageKey = typeof(MainPage).Name;
public static readonly string WorkPageKey = typeof(WorkPage).Name;
static ViewLocator()
{
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => SimpleIoc.Default);
var navigationService = new NavigationService();
navigationService.Configure(MainPageKey, typeof(MainPage));
navigationService.Configure(WorkPageKey, typeof(WorkPage));
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<INavigationService>(() => navigationService);
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<IDialogService, DialogService>();
}
}
Before, both classes were combined in ViewModelLocator, however i figured that the ViewModelLocator as part of the "ViewModels-Side-of-things" should be unaware of the views and it's types, which is why I refactored that code into two classes.
My MainPageView then has a button, which triggers a navigation command in the MainPageView.cs
public class MainPageViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
private INavigationService _navigationService;
public RelayCommand CreateNewImageCommand { get; private set; }
public MainPageViewModel(INavigationService navigationService)
{
_navigationService = navigationService;
CreateNewImageCommand = new RelayCommand(CreateNewImage, () => true);
}
public void CreateNewImage()
{
_navigationService.NavigateTo(Views.ViewLocator.WorkPageKey);
}
}
For completeness, here is my App.xaml
<Application
...>
<Application.Resources>
<v:ViewLocator x:Key="ViewLocator" />
<vm:ViewModelLocator x:Key="ViewModelLocator" />
</Application.Resources>
Now what happens is this: if I don't have the DEBUG LINE in ViewModelLocator, at the point at which MainPage requests its ViewModel from the ViewModelLocator, the constructor of ViewLocator has not been called yet and return ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<MainPageViewModel>(); throws an exception. If I include the DEBUG LINE, this forces the ViewLocator Constructor to be run first, and everything works fine.
How can I achieve this behaviour without that odd debug line?

You are running into the reason most developers do not use static classes and a service locator.
As suggested in your comments try using dependency injection. This allows inversion of control for the component that manages this wiring.
Look into MEF or Unity as a framework to use rather than rolling your own IoC. Both have advantages and disadvantages but either will work. They also allow for easier and cleaner testing.
MEF
Unity

Despite of all the comments and other answers, I think that I was on the track after all. To solve or rather bypass this problem, I have created added bootstrapping of the SimpleIoC Container in the Startup of the App and move the code from the ViewLocator's constructor there.
I also removed the ServiceLocator calls, which was sort of redundant and rely on SimpleIoC.Default now directly.
The Navigator is still injected into the ViewModels by the SimpleIoC Container. The ViewModelLocator however is necessary work in conjuction with the XAML code.
I recommend this answer as a starting point for others who are also struggling with this issue.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/25524753/2175012
After all, I have taken the side that ServiceLocators are no anti pattern but have to be used carefully.

Re-implementing WindowManager using ModernUI + Caliburn.Micro combination

Here Caliburn.Micro was successfully combined with ModernUI.
But if we want to use multiple windows we also need to re-implement Caliburn's WindowManager to work properly with ModernUI. How can it be done?
UPDATE:
(Additional question about IoC-Container/Dependency Injection)
Ok, as I get it: I used a Constructor Injection here:
public class BuildingsViewModel : Conductor<IScreen>
{
public BuildingsViewModel(IWindowManager _windowManager)
{
windowManager = _windowManager;
}
}
As far as BuildingsViewModel resolved from IoC container,
container itself injected ModernWindowManager implementation of IWindowManager interface because of this line in Bootstrapper's Configure() method:
container.Singleton<IWindowManager, ModernWindowManager>();
If I resolving an object instance from container, it injects all needed dependencies. Like a tree.
1) So now I wonder how can I replace this line using an injection(with interface)?
_windowManager.ShowWindow(new PopupViewModel());
2) If I want my whole project match DI pattern, all objects instances must be injected into ModernWindowViewModel, that resolves from container first?
3) Is it okay to use Caliburn's SimpleContainer for whole project, or better use mature framework like Castle Windsor? Should I avoid mixing?
UPDATE2:
4) Integrating an IoC container into an existing application requires creating this container first(in Main() method of console app for example), and then all object instanses must grow from it with injected dependencies?

Simply create your own derived WindowManager and override EnsureWindow:
public class ModernWindowManager : WindowManager
{
protected override Window EnsureWindow(object rootModel, object view, bool isDialog)
{
var window = view as ModernWindow;
if (window == null)
{
window = new ModernWindow();
window.SetValue(View.IsGeneratedProperty, true);
}
return window;
}
}
Any views that you want to use as popups must be based on ModernWindow and must either use a LinkGroupCollection or you must set the ContentSource property of the window, otherwise there will be no content.
You could possibly make this View-First but it works ViewModel-First using the method above.
e.g. to popup my PopupView I did the following
PopupView.xaml
<mui:ModernWindow x:Class="TestModernUI.ViewModels.PopupView"
xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006"
xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008"
xmlns:mui="http://firstfloorsoftware.com/ModernUI"
mc:Ignorable="d"
d:DesignHeight="300" d:DesignWidth="300" ContentSource="/ViewModels/ChildView.xaml">
</mui:ModernWindow>
PopupViewModel.cs
public class PopupViewModel : Screen
{
// Blah
}
Code to popup the view from another ViewModel:
public void SomeMethod()
{
_windowManager.ShowWindow(new PopupViewModel()); // Or use injection etc
}
Don't forget to register ModernWindowManager in place of WindowManager in your container!
e.g. using CM's SimpleContainer
container.Singleton<IWindowManager, ModernWindowManager>();
Obviously the only downside I can see to the above is that you can't seem to put content directly in a ModernWindow, so you have to have two UserControls for every popup!
A workaround would be to change EnsureWindow in ModernWindowManager so that it created a UserControl based on ModernWindow and set the ContentSource to the URI of the view you want to load, this will trigger the content loader and wire up your ViewModel. I'll update if I get a minute to try it.
Update:
Ok, so at the moment it's very hacky, but this could be a starting point for something useful. Basically I'm generating a URI based on the namespace and name of the view.
I'm sure there is a more reliable way of doing this, but for my test project it works:
protected override Window EnsureWindow(object rootModel, object view, bool isDialog)
{
var window = view as ModernWindow;
if (window == null)
{
window = new ModernWindow();
// Get the namespace of the view control
var t = view.GetType();
var ns = t.Namespace;
// Subtract the project namespace from the start of the full namespace
ns = ns.Remove(0, 12);
// Replace the dots with slashes and add the view name and .xaml
ns = ns.Replace(".", "/") + "/" + t.Name + ".xaml";
// Set the content source to the Uri you've made
window.ContentSource = new Uri(ns, UriKind.Relative);
window.SetValue(View.IsGeneratedProperty, true);
}
return window;
}
My full namespace for my view was TestModernUI.ViewModels.PopupView and the URI generated was /ViewModels/PopupView.xaml which then was loaded and bound via the content loader automagically.
Update 2
FYI here is my Bootstrapper configure method:
protected override void Configure()
{
container = new SimpleContainer();
container.Singleton<IWindowManager, ModernWindowManager>();
container.Singleton<IEventAggregator, EventAggregator>();
container.PerRequest<ChildViewModel>();
container.PerRequest<ModernWindowViewModel>();
container.PerRequest<IShell, ModernWindowViewModel>();
}
Here I create the container, and register some types.
The CM services such as WindowManager and EventAggregator are both registered against their respective interfaces and as singletons so only 1 instance of each will be available at run time.
The view models are registered as PerRequest which creates a new instance every time you request one from the container - this way you can have the same window popup multiple times without strange behaviour!
These dependencies are injected into the constructor of any objects resolved at run time.
Update 3
In answer to your IoC questions:
1) So now I wonder how can I replace this line using an injection(with interface)? _windowManager.ShowWindow(new PopupViewModel());
Since your viewmodels will now usually need dependencies you need to have some way of injecting them into the instances. If PopupViewModel had several dependencies, you could inject them into the parent class but this would couple the parent viewmodel to PopupViewModel in some way.
There are a couple of other methods you can use to get an instance of PopupViewModel.
Inject it!
If you register PopupViewModel as PerRequest you will get a new instance of it every time you request it. If you only need one popup instance in your viewmodel you can just inject it:
public class MyViewModel
{
private PopupViewModel _popup;
private IWindowManager _windowManager;
public MyViewModel(PopupViewModel popup, IWindowManager windowManager)
{
_popup = popup;
_windowManager = windowManager;
}
public void ShowPopup()
{
_windowManager.ShowPopup(_popup);
}
}
The only downside is that the instance will be the same one if you need to use it multiple times in the same viewmodel, though you could inject multiple instances of PopupViewModel if you knew how many you needed at the same time
Use some form of on-demand injection
For dependencies which are required later on you can use on-demand injection such as a factory
I don't think Caliburn or SimpleContainer support factories out of the box, so the alternative is to use IoC.Get<T>. IoC is a static class which lets you access your DI container after instantiation
public void ShowPopup()
{
var popup = IoC.Get<PopupViewModel>();
_windowManager.ShowWindow(popup);
}
You need to make sure you have correctly registered the container in your bootstrapper and delegated any calls to CM's IoC methods to the container - IoC.Get<T> calls the bootstrapper's GetInstance and other methods:
Here's an example:
public class AppBootstrapper : BootstrapperBase {
SimpleContainer container;
public AppBootstrapper() {
Initialize();
}
protected override void Configure() {
container = new SimpleContainer();
container.Singleton<IWindowManager, ModernWindowManager>();
container.Singleton<IEventAggregator, EventAggregator>();
container.PerRequest<IShell, ModernWindowViewModel>();
// Register viewmodels etc here....
}
// IoC.Get<T> or IoC.GetInstance(Type type, string key) ....
protected override object GetInstance(Type service, string key) {
var instance = container.GetInstance(service, key);
if (instance != null)
return instance;
throw new InvalidOperationException("Could not locate any instances.");
}
// IoC.GetAll<T> or IoC.GetAllInstances(Type type) ....
protected override IEnumerable<object> GetAllInstances(Type service) {
return container.GetAllInstances(service);
}
// IoC.BuildUp(object obj) ....
protected override void BuildUp(object instance) {
container.BuildUp(instance);
}
protected override void OnStartup(object sender, System.Windows.StartupEventArgs e) {
DisplayRootViewFor<IShell>();
}
Castle.Windsor supports factories so that you can Resolve and Release your components and manage their lifetime more explicitly, but I won't go into that here
2) If I want my whole project match DI pattern, all objects instances must be injected into ModernWindowViewModel, that resolves from container first?
You only need to inject the dependencies that the ModernWindowViewModel needs. Anything that is required by children is automatically resolved and injected e.g.:
public class ParentViewModel
{
private ChildViewModel _child;
public ParentViewModel(ChildViewModel child)
{
_child = child;
}
}
public class ChildViewModel
{
private IWindowManager _windowManager;
private IEventAggregator _eventAggregator;
public ChildViewModel(IWindowManager windowManager, IEventAggregator eventAggregator)
{
_windowManager = windowManager;
_eventAggregator = eventAggregator;
}
}
In the above situation, if you resolve ParentViewModel from the container - the ChildViewModel will get all it's dependencies. You don't need to inject them into the parent.
3) Is it okay to use Caliburn's SimpleContainer for whole project, or better use mature framework like Castle Windsor? Should I avoid mixing?
You can mix, but it might be confusing as they won't work with each other (one container won't know about the other). Just stick with one container, and SimpleContainer is fine - Castle Windsor has a lot more features, but you might never need them (I've only used a few of the advanced features)
4) Integrating an IoC container into an existing application requires creating this container first(in Main() method of console app for example), and then all object instanses must grow from it with injected dependencies?
Yes, you create the container, then you resolve the root component (in 99.9% of applications there is one main component which is called the composition root), and this then builds the full tree.
Here is an example of a bootstrapper for a service based application. I'm using Castle Windsor and I wanted to be able to host the engine in a Windows service or in a WPF application or even in a Console Window (for testing/debug):
// The bootstrapper sets up the container/engine etc
public class Bootstrapper
{
// Castle Windsor Container
private readonly IWindsorContainer _container;
// Service for writing to logs
private readonly ILogService _logService;
// Bootstrap the service
public Bootstrapper()
{
_container = new WindsorContainer();
// Some Castle Windsor features:
// Add a subresolver for collections, we want all queues to be resolved generically
_container.Kernel.Resolver.AddSubResolver(new CollectionResolver(_container.Kernel));
// Add the typed factory facility and wcf facility
_container.AddFacility<TypedFactoryFacility>();
_container.AddFacility<WcfFacility>();
// Winsor uses Installers for registering components
// Install the core dependencies
_container.Install(FromAssembly.This());
// Windsor supports plugins by looking in directories for assemblies which is a nice feature - I use that here:
// Install any plugins from the plugins directory
_container.Install(FromAssembly.InDirectory(new AssemblyFilter("plugins", "*.dll")));
_logService = _container.Resolve<ILogService>();
}
/// <summary>
/// Gets the engine instance after initialisation or returns null if initialisation failed
/// </summary>
/// <returns>The active engine instance</returns>
public IIntegrationEngine GetEngine()
{
try
{
return _container.Resolve<IIntegrationEngine>();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_logService.Fatal(new Exception("The engine failed to initialise", ex));
}
return null;
}
// Get an instance of the container (for debugging)
public IWindsorContainer GetContainer()
{
return _container;
}
}
Once the bootstrapper is created, it sets up the container and registers all services and also plugin dlls. The call to GetEngine starts the application by resolving Engine from the container which creates the full dependency tree.
I did this so that it allows me to create a service or a console version of the application like this:
Service Code:
public partial class IntegrationService : ServiceBase
{
private readonly Bootstrapper _bootstrapper;
private IIntegrationEngine _engine;
public IntegrationService()
{
InitializeComponent();
_bootstrapper = new Bootstrapper();
}
protected override void OnStart(string[] args)
{
// Resolve the engine which resolves all dependencies
_engine = _bootstrapper.GetEngine();
if (_engine == null)
Stop();
else
_engine.Start();
}
protected override void OnStop()
{
if (_engine != null)
_engine.Stop();
}
}
Console App:
public class ConsoleAppExample
{
private readonly Bootstrapper _bootstrapper;
private IIntegrationEngine _engine;
public ConsoleAppExample()
{
_bootstrapper = new Bootstrapper();
// Resolve the engine which resolves all dependencies
_engine = _bootstrapper.GetEngine();
_engine.Start();
}
}
Here's part of the implementation of IIntegrationEngine
public class IntegrationEngine : IIntegrationEngine
{
private readonly IScheduler _scheduler;
private readonly ICommsService _commsService;
private readonly IEngineStateService _engineState;
private readonly IEnumerable<IEngineComponent> _components;
private readonly ConfigurationManager _configurationManager;
private readonly ILogService _logService;
public IntegrationEngine(ICommsService commsService, IEngineStateService engineState, IEnumerable<IEngineComponent> components,
ConfigurationManager configurationManager, ILogService logService)
{
_commsService = commsService;
_engineState = engineState;
_components = components;
_configurationManager = configurationManager;
_logService = logService;
// The comms service needs to be running all the time, so start that up
commsService.Start();
}
All of the other components have dependencies, but I don't inject those into the IntegrationEngine - they are handled by the container

Best practice for Ninject to get different implementations based on top level project

I am just starting to learn Dependency Injection and I am stuck here.
My project has a WCF DataService over an Entity Framework DbContext.
public class MyDataService : DataService<MyDbContext>
{
protected override MyDbContext CreateDataSource()
{
// I want to use dependency injection for this
return new MyDbContext();
}
}
The class is either
a) IIS hosted, so I don't have any control
b) for integration tests, created with var host = new DataServiceHost(type, new Uri[] { });
both use different contstructors for MyDbContext
So basically to inject the Context with this
protected override MyDbContext CreateDataSource()
{
INinjectModule module = ???; // -
IKernel kernel = new StandardKernel(module);
return kernel.Get<MyDbContext>();
}
So the question is, what is best practice in this situation?
Should I:
a) Create a Module in a Class Library that both main projects and the service use
b) Create a public static Variable inside the DataService project that holds the Ninject module.
c) Create a public static Variable inside the DataService project that holds the Ninject kernel
d) Something else.
I would prefer something like
protected override MyDbContext CreateDataSource()
{
DefaultKernel.Get<MyDbContext>();
}

Firstly, you should have a Composition Root. That is, a single place where your Kernel is created (not in every single function).
Secondly, you don't need a NinjectModule here.. you're asking Ninject to create an instance of a concrete object (which in almost all circumstances.. defeats the purpose).
What you should create, is a separate NinjectModule pass it into the constructor of the Kernel.. something like this:
interface IContext {
}
class MyDbContext : DbContext, IContext {
}
class YourModule : NinjectModule {
protected override void Bind() {
Bind<IContext>().To<MyDbContext>();
}
}
// In your composition root somewhere
var kernel = new StandardKernel(new NinjectModule[] { new YourModule() });
// in your createdatasource method
kernel.Get<IContext>();
This will get you started. Normally, your composition root is what drives injection of objects throughout your application, thereby eliminating the need to pass the Kernel around (which you will have to do in your current setup).
The hard thing to understand when starting out with DI/IoC is that it is the container's job to create your entire dependency graph. Therefore, if you setup the following bindings:
IContract1 -> ConcreteObject1
IContract2 -> ConcreteObject2
IContract3 -> ConcreteObject3
..and have the following setup:
class ConcreteObject1 : IContract1 {
public ConcreteObject1(IContract2 contract3) {
}
}
class ConcreteObject2 : IContract2 {
public ConcreteObject2(IContract3 contract3) {
}
}
If you ask your container for a concrete implementation of IContract1 (which will be ConcreteObject1), then it will create it.... BUT: ConcreteObject1 requires a concrete implementation of IContract2 in the constructor. So the container says "Wait, I know how to create this".. and passes in an instance of ConcreteObject2. Again, it says "wait, ConcreteObject2 wants a concrete implementation of IContract3.. again, it goes and fetches one.
Hopefully that helps.

What is Ninject and when do you use it?

I have been helping a few friends on a project and there is a class that uses Ninject. I am fairly new to C# and I have no idea what that class is doing, which is why I need to understand Ninject. Can anyone explain what Ninject is and when does one use it(with example if possible)? Or if you can point to some links that would be great too.
I tried this question: Ninject tutorials/documentations? but it didn't really help a beginner like me.

Ninject is dependency injector for .NET, practical realisation of pattern Dependency Injection (form of Inversion of Control pattern).
Suppose you have two classes DbRepository and Controller:
class Controller {
private DbRepository _repository;
// ... some methods that uses _repository
}
class DbRepository {
// ... some bussiness logic here ...
}
So, now you have two problems:
You must initialize _repository to use it. You have several options for doing this:
Manually, within the constructor. But what if the constructor of DbRepository changes? You would need to rewrite your Controller class because code it's dependent upon was changed. It's not hard if you have only one Controller, but if you have a couple of classes that have a dependency on your Repository you have a real problem.
You can use a service locator or factory. But now you have a dependency on your service locator. You have a global service locator and all code must use it. How you will you change the behavior of your service locator when you need to use it in one part of your code for activation logic but for something else in another part of your code? There is only one way - passing the service locator through constructors. But with more and more classes you will need to pass it more and more times. Anyway, it's a good thought but in the long run, it's a bad idea.
class Controller {
private DbRepository _repository;
public Controller() {
_repository = GlobalServiceLocator.Get<DbRepository>()
}
// ... some methods that uses _repository
}
You can use dependency injection. Look at the code:
class Controller {
private IRepository _repository;
public Controller(IRepository repository) {
_repository = repository;
}
}
Now when you need your controller you write: ninjectDevKernel.Get<Controller>(); or ninjectTestKernel.Get<Controller>();. You can switch beetween dependency resolvers as fast as you want. See? It's simple, you don't need to write a lot.
You can't create unit tests for it. Your Controller has a dependency on DbRepository and if you want to test some method that uses repository, your code will go to the database and ask it for data. That's slow, very slow. If your code in DbRepository changes, your unit test on Controller will fall. Only integration test must warn you of 'problems' in this case. What you need in unit tests - is to isolate your classes and test only one class in one test (in ideal - only one method). If your DbRepository code fails, you will think that Controller code failed - and that's bad (even if you have tests for DbRepository and Controller - they both will fail and you can start from the wrong place). It takes a lot of time to determine where the error really is. You need to know that class A is ok, and it was class B where something failed.
When you want to replace DbRepository with something else in all your classes, you have to do a lot of work.
You can't easily control the lifetime of DbRepository. An object of this class is created on initialization of Controller and deleted when Controller is deleted. There is no sharing between different instances of the Controller class and there is no sharing between other classes. With Ninject you can simply write:
kernel.Bind<IRepository>().To<DbRepository>().InSingletonScope();
A special feature of dependency injection - agile development! You describe that your controller uses a repository with interface IRepository. You don't need to write DbRepository, you can simply create a MemoryRepository class and develop Controller while another person develops DbRepository. When work on DbRepository is finished, you just rebind in your dependency resolver that default IRepository is now DbRepository. Have a lot of controllers? All of them will now use DbRepository. That's cool.
Read more:
Inversion of control (wiki)
Dependency injection (wiki)
Inversion of Control Containers and the Dependency Injection pattern (Martin Fowler)

Ninject is an Inversion of Control container.
What does it do?
Suppose you have a Car class that depends on a Driver class.
public class Car
{
public Car(IDriver driver)
{
///
}
}
In order to use the Car class you build it like so:
IDriver driver = new Driver();
var car = new Car(driver);
A IoC containter centralizes the knowledge about how to build classes. It is a central repository that knows a few things. For example, it knows that the concrete class that you need to use to build a car is a Driver and not any other IDriver.
For example, if you are developing a MVC application, you can tell Ninject how to build your controllers. You do so by registering which concrete classes satisfy specific interfaces. At run time Ninject will figure out which classes are needed to build the required controller, and all behind the scenes.
// Syntax for binding
Bind<IDriver>().To<Driver>();
This is beneficial because it lets you build systems that are more easily unit testable. Suppose that Driver encapsulates all database access for Car. In a unit test for Car you can do this:
IDriver driver = new TestDriver(); // a fake driver that does not go to the db
var car = new Car(driver);
There are entire frameworks that take care of automatically creating testing classes for you and they are called mocking frameworks.
For more information:
GitHub/Ninject Home
Inversion of Control
Inversion of Control Containers and the Dependency Injection pattern
Mock Object

Other answers are great but I would also like to point out this Implementing Dependency Injection using Ninject article.
This is one of the best articles I ever read which explains Dependency Injection and Ninject with a very elegant example.
Here's the snippet from the article:
Below Interface will be implemented by our (SMSService) and (MockSMSService), basically the new Interface (ISMSService) will expose the same behaviors of both services as the code below:
public interface ISMSService
{
void SendSMS(string phoneNumber, string body);
}
(SMSService) implementation to implement the (ISMSService) interface:
public class SMSService : ISMSService
{
public void SendSMS(string mobileNumber, string body)
{
SendSMSUsingGateway(mobileNumber, body);
}
private void SendSMSUsingGateway(string mobileNumber, string body)
{
/*implementation for sending SMS using gateway*/
Console.WriteLine("Sending SMS using gateway to mobile:
{0}. SMS body: {1}", mobileNumber, body);
}
}
(MockSMSService) with totally different implementation using the same interface:
public class MockSMSService :ISMSService
{
public void SendSMS(string phoneNumber, string body)
{
SaveSMSToFile(phoneNumber,body);
}
private void SaveSMSToFile(string mobileNumber, string body)
{
/*implementation for saving SMS to a file*/
Console.WriteLine("Mocking SMS using file to mobile:
{0}. SMS body: {1}", mobileNumber, body);
}
}
we need to implement a change to our (UIHandler) class constructor to pass the dependency through it, by doing this, the code which uses the (UIHandler) can determine which concrete implementation of (ISMSService) to use:
public class UIHandler
{
private readonly ISMSService _SMSService;
public UIHandler(ISMSService SMSService)
{
_SMSService = SMSService;
}
public void SendConfirmationMsg(string mobileNumber) {
_SMSService.SendSMS(mobileNumber, "Your order has been shipped successfully!");
}
}
Now, we have to create a separate class (NinjectBindings) which inherits from (NinjectModule). This class will be responsible to resolve dependencies at run time, then we’ll override the load event which is used to configure the binding in it. The nice thing about Ninject is that we do not need to change our code in (ISMSService), (SMSService), and (MockSMSService).
public class NinjectBindings : Ninject.Modules.NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<ISMSService>().To<MockSMSService>();
}
}
Now in UI form code, we’ll use the binding for Ninject which will determine which implementation to use:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IKernel _Kernal = new StandardKernel();
_Kernal.Load(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
ISMSService _SMSService = _Kernal.Get<ISMSService>();
UIHandler _UIHandler = new UIHandler(_SMSService);
_UIHandler.SendConfirmationMsg("96279544480");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Now the code is using the Ninject Kernal to resolve all chain of dependencies, if we want to use the real service (SMSService) in Release mode (on production environment) instead of the mock one, we need to change on the Ninject binding class (NinjectBindings) only to use the right implementation or by using the #if DEBUG directive as below:
public class NinjectBindings : Ninject.Modules.NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
#if DEBUG
Bind<ISMSService>().To<MockSMSService>();
#else
Bind<ISMSService>().To<SMSService>();
#endif
}
}
Now our binding class (NinjectBindings) is living on the top of all our execution code and we can control the configuration easily in once place.
Also, see What is Inversion of Control? some very simple examples are mentioned to understand IoC.

You have to understand the Dependency Injection(DI) first. Notice here,
public interface IService
{
void Serve();
}
public class Service1 : IService
{
public void Serve() {
Console.WriteLine("Service1 Called");
}
}
public class Service2 : IService
{
public void Serve() {
Console.WriteLine("Service2 Called");
}
}
public class Service3 : IService
{
public void Serve() {
Console.WriteLine("Service3 Called");
}
}
public class Client
{
private IService service;
public Client(IService _service) //Constructor injection
{
service = _service;
}
public void ServeMethod() {
service.Serve(); //Notice here, this Serve() method has no idea what to do.
} // runtime will assign the object, that is Ninject
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
IService s1 = new Service1(); //N.B. Ninject assigns object with interface
Client c1 = new Client(s1);
c1.ServeMethod();
IService s2 = new Service2(); //N.B. Ninject assigns object with interface
c1 = new Client(s2);
c1.ServeMethod();
IService s3 = new Service3(); //N.B. Ninject assigns object with interface
c1 = new Client(s3);
c1.ServeMethod();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
// Ninject creates object in runtime for interface in runtime in ASP.NET MVC project.
/*
Output:
Service1 Called
Service2 Called
Service3 Called
*/

Ninject + ASP.NET Web Forms Not Working

I've successfully implemented Ninject in an MVC3 application, but am running into some trouble doing the same thing with ASP.NET Web Forms. I'm getting null references every time I try to access an injected property in my business layer. After setting breakpoints within the CreateKernel method, as well as several places within the ServiceLocator class, it looks like none of them are ever getting hit, so it's not even loading.
I'm sure I'm just approaching this wrong, but there is very little documentation or info out there for wiring up Ninject in a Web Forms application.
Basically here's what I have so far:
code behind
public class ReviewManager
{
[Inject] private IReviewRepository _reviewRepository { get; set; }
public ReviewManager() { }
public ReviewManager(IReviewRepository reviewRepository)
{
_reviewRepository = reviewRepository;
}
public Review GetById(int id)
{
if (id <= 0) throw new ArgumentException("ID must be greater than zero");
**I get a null reference exception on the next line. _reviewRepository is null**
return _reviewRepository.GetById(id);
}
}
global.asax.cs
public class Global : NinjectHttpApplication
{
protected override IKernel CreateKernel()
{
return ServiceLocator.Kernel;
}
// deleted for brevity
}
ServiceLocator.cs (edited for brevity, the relevant parts are here)
public static class ServiceLocator
{
public static IKernel Kernel { get; set; }
public static ILogger Logger { get; set; }
static ServiceLocator()
{
Kernel = new StandardKernel(new INinjectModule[] {
new LoggerBindings(),
new DataBindings()
});
if (Logger == null)
Logger = Kernel.Get<ILogger>();
}
}
public class LoggerBindings : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<ILogger>().To<NLogLogger>();
}
}
public class DataBindings : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IReviewRepository>().To<ReviewRepository>();
}
}

ASP.Net via WebForms does not allow you to manage the lifecycle of all object instances (like MVC does). For example, the framework instantiates page objects. This means you probably can't implement DI in quite the same way as you would in MVC/WPF/Silverlight (the same problem is present in WinForms IIRC). You will likely have to initiate the dependency graph directly in each of your code behinds.
Translation: you will want to call ServiceLocator.Kernel.Get<IReviewRepository> when your page loads (or as lazy-init on the property).

The cool thing about MVC ist that it can run side a side of ASP.NET WebForm pages in the same application. In my opinion the best way to extend ASP.NET WebForms websites is to create new pages using MVC3 and to refactor every page that needs major changes to MVC3.
If this is no option go and use the Ninject.Web extension. It contains a IHttpModule that property injects all web pages and controlls after they are initialized. That way you can property inject the services als have them created by Ninject.

A potential workaround, by changing your DataBindings class as follows:
public class DataBindings : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IReviewRepository>().To<ReviewRepository>();
Bind<ReviewManager>().ToSelf();
}
}
And within your caller, instead of
var rm = new ReviewManager();
Try using
var rm = ServiceLocator.Kernel.Get<ReviewManager>();
I havent tested this code, but i think it'll solve your null reference problem.

I use property injection for pages, masterpages and usercontrols. All my pages, for example, inherit from a base class that overrides RequestActivation method with the following code:
''' <summary>
''' Asks the kernel to inject this instance.
''' </summary>
Protected Overridable Sub RequestActivation()
ServiceLocator.Kernel.Inject(Me)
End Sub
And in each page I declare injectable properties:
<Inject()>
Property repo As IMyRepository