We Keep Coding

Autofac: register component as different services using different constructors

I would like to register a singleton component for multiple services and define which constructor to use, depending on which service was used during the resolve call.
I tried this:
_builder.RegisterType<TComponent>()
.As<IService1>()
.FindConstructorsWith(ConstructorFinder1)
.SingleInstance();
_builder.RegisterType<TComponent>()
.As<IService2>()
.FindConstructorsWith(ConstructorFinder2)
.SingleInstance();
But this leads to two different "singleton" instances, depending on which service was used.
So I tried:
_builder.RegisterType<TComponent>()
.As<IService1>()
.FindConstructorsWith(ConstructorFinder1)
.As<IService2>()
.FindConstructorsWith(ConstructorFinder2)
.SingleInstance();
This solves the singleton issue, but sadly the second FindConstructorsWith call overrides the first call, i.e. for both services ConstructorFinder2 is used.
I had assumed (hoped) that the ConstructorFinders would be stored with respect to the service, but apparently this is not the case.
Is what I'm trying to achieve conceptually wrong, does Autofac not support it or am I simply missing something?
EDIT:
Once again thanks to Travis for his great response. Apparently I left out a few details that made things confusing. Let me add some now.
This question was actually a kind of follow-up to How to determine which constructor Autofac uses when resolving (where Travis also helped me along). So the issue comes up when deserializing and it affects many different objects.
I get the arguments about composition, seperation of concerns and how having several ctors is often considered a code smell, but in the context of deserialization (at least for the app I'm currently developing) it is extremely useful to be able to create instances differently, depending on if they are newly built or deserialized from a project file. Several members that need to be initialized when building a new instance do not have to be initialized when deserializing (because their values would be overridden during deserialization anyway). It would mean extra performance costs and (and, in this case) cause other issues regarding the throw-away-initializations.
After spending days trying to find a solution (with complications also coming from the Newtonsoft Json side) I've decided to discontinue Autofac and implement our own IOC container. For general purposes it cannot (obviously!) compete with Autofac in any way, but since we were really only using a small subset of Autofac's great features, I felt we could try to roll our own. It took me a lot less than the days I've spent on trying to wrap my head around a monolithic black box. Yes, Autofac is open source, but stepping through the code no walk in the park.
First tests are very promising and it feels good to regain full control of such a vital component of the application.
Again, the reason for leaving Autofac was that it is not (feasibly) possible to define how a singleton component is constructed depending on the service it was constructed for. And from a general structure/concept point-of-view I understand that it makes sense to strictly seperate the service and the construction-how-tos. But during deserializing things are different, I believe. And, now that I'm independent of Autofac, I may decide to alter the mechanisms so they fit into the overall concept in a more straight-forward way.

This is sort of a difficult question to answer because it seems you have some underlying goal you're trying to achieve and you have a solution you want to work but perhaps it's the wrong solution and you should ask a [new] question depending on how this response works out for you.
Let me walk this through to see if I can explain why it's hard to answer.
I would like to register a singleton component for multiple services and define which constructor to use, depending on which service was used during the resolve call.
If it's a singleton that means there's one in the whole system, right? It'll be effectively "first in wins." If something resolves it as an IService1 then the constructor associated with that will be called and even if you try resolving it as IService2 later no construction will happen because the singleton was created. The converse is also true - IService2 gets resolved and the constructor path is followed there, then things asking for IService1 will get the singleton and no constructor is called.
That raises a concern:
If you know which thing, for sure, will be resolving first, then why do you need two different constructor selectors?
If you don't know which thing will be resolving first, then are you accounting for the system unpredictability?
I have seen these sorts of questions before and usually what they indicate is one of two things:
You are trying to do some sort of selection or special logic based on context. There's an Autofac FAQ about this that may help. Usually the way around this is to refactor. I'll get back to that in a second.
You are trying to "share registrations" between two different applications. The answer to this is to use Autofac modules and reuse those; but if there are special registrations for each app type, let that happen.
This isn't to say that either of these are what you're asking for, but this is where I've seen such questions. Usually there's some unspoken goal where a solution has been pre-chosen and it's better ask how to solve the goal rather than how to implement a very specific solution. Again, I could be wrong.
On the refactoring note for item 1, above, I can further guess based on the desire for a singleton that there's some sort of resource like a database connection that needs to be shared or is expensive to spin up. Consider splitting the TComponent into three separate classes:
TCommonExpensiveComponent - this is the stuff that is actually expensive to spin up and really does need to be a singleton, but does not differ across IService1 and IService2.
TService1 - implement IService1 with only the required constructor so you don't need a constructor finder. Have it consume TCommonExpensiveComponent.
TService2 - implement IService2 with only the required constructor so you don't need a constructor finder. Have it consume TCommonExpensiveComponent.
The idea being avoid the complexity of registrations, keep the shared/singleton that you want, and still get different constructor usage as needed. You may want to throw in some common base/abstract class, too, that the TService classes can derive from if there's really a lot of common logic.
Is what I'm trying to achieve conceptually wrong, does Autofac not support it or am I simply missing something?
Technically you could do some really crazy stuff in Autofac if you wanted to, like write a custom registration source that waits for someone to query for the IService1 or IService2 registration and then picks a constructor based on that, dynamically serving the registration as needed. But, truly, don't even start down this road.
Instead, it would be good to clarify what the problem is that you're trying to solve and how you plan on working around the challenges listed above if my response here doesn't help. Do that in a brand new question that goes into more detail about your challenge and what you've tried. This not being a forum, having a conversation to try and weed out additional help given the current question really isn't feasible. Plus, taking a second to step back and maybe reframe the question sounds like it might help here.

Replacing service layer with MediatR - is it worth to do it?

Do you think it might be reasonable to replace my service layer or service classes with MediatR? For example, my service classes look like this:
public interface IEntityService<TEntityDto> where TEntityDto : class, IDto
{
Task<TEntityDto> CreateAsync(TEntityDto entityDto);
Task<bool> DeleteAsync(int id);
Task<IEnumerable<TEntityDto>> GetAllAsync(SieveModel sieveModel);
Task<TEntityDto> GetByIdAsync(int id);
Task<TEntityDto> UpdateAsync(int id, TEntityDto entityDto);
}
I want to achieve some sort of modular design so other dynamically loaded modules
or plugins can write their own notification or command handlers for my main core application.
Currently, my application is not event-driven at all and there's no easy way for my dynamically loaded plugins to communicate.
I can either incorporate MediatR in my controllers removing service layer completely or use it with my service layer just publishing notifications so my plugins can handle them.
Currently, my logic is mostly CRUD but there's a lot of custom logic going on before creating, updating, deleting.
Possible replacement of my service would look like:
public class CommandHandler : IRequestHandler<CreateCommand, Response>, IRequestHandler<UpdateCommand, Response>, IRequestHandler<DeleteCommand, bool>
{
private readonly DbContext _dbContext;
public CommandHandler(DbContext dbContext)
{
_dbContext = dbContext;
}
public Task<Response> Handle(CreateCommand request, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
//...
}
public Task<Response> Handle(UpdateCommand request, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
//...
}
public Task<bool> Handle(DeleteCommand request, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
///...
}
}
Would it be something wrong to do?
Basically, I'm struggling what to choose for my logic flow:
Controller -> Service -> MediatR -> Notification handlers -> Repository
Controller -> MediatR -> Command handlers -> Repository
It seems like with MediatR I can't have a single model for Create, Update and Delete, so one way to re-use it I'd need to derive requests like:
public CreateRequest : MyDto, IRequest<MyDto> {}
public UpdateRequest : MyDto, IRequest<MyDto> {}
or embed it in my command like:
public CreateRequest : IRequest<MyDto>
{
MyDto MyDto { get; set; }
}
One advantage of MediatR is the ability to plug logic in and plug it out easily which seems like a nice fit for modular architecture but still, I'm a bit confused how to shape my architecture with it.

Update: I'm preserving the answer, but my position on this has changed somewhat as indicated in this blog post.
If you have a class, let's say an API controller, and it depends on
IRequestHandler<CreateCommand, Response>
What is the benefit of changing your class so that it depends on IMediator,
and instead of calling
return requestHandler.HandleRequest(request);
it calls
return mediator.Send(request);
The result is that instead of injecting the dependency we need, we inject a service locator which in turn resolves the dependency we need.
Quoting Mark Seeman's article,
In short, the problem with Service Locator is that it hides a class' dependencies, causing run-time errors instead of compile-time errors, as well as making the code more difficult to maintain because it becomes unclear when you would be introducing a breaking change.
It's not exactly the same as
var commandHandler = serviceLocator.Resolve<IRequestHandler<CreateCommand, Response>>();
return commandHandler.Handle(request);
because the mediator is limited to resolving command and query handlers, but it's close. It's still a single interface that provides access to lots of other ones.
It makes code harder to navigate
After we introduce IMediator, our class still indirectly depends on IRequestHandler<CreateCommand, Response>. The difference is that now we can't tell by looking at it. We can't navigate from the interface to its implementations. We might reason that we can still follow the dependencies if we know what to look for - that is, if we know the conventions of command handler interface names. But that's not nearly as helpful as a class actually declaring what it depends on.
Sure, we get the benefit of having interfaces wired up to concrete implementations without writing the code, but the savings are trivial and we'll likely lose whatever time we save because of the added (if minor) difficulty of navigating the code. And there are libraries which will register those dependencies for us anyway while still allowing us to inject abstraction we actually depend on.
It's a weird, skewed way of depending on abstractions
It's been suggested that using a mediator assists with implementing the decorator pattern. But again, we already gain that ability by depending on an abstraction. We can use one implementation of an interface or another that adds a decorator. The point of depending on abstractions is that we can change such implementation details without changing the abstraction.
To elaborate: The point of depending on ISomethingSpecific is that we can change or replace the implementation without modifying the classes that depend on it. But if we say, "I want to change the implementation of ISomethingSpecific (by adding a decorator), so to accomplish that I'm going to change the classes that depend on ISomethingSpecific, which were working just fine, and make them depend on some generic, all-purpose interface", then something has gone wrong. There are numerous other ways to add decorators without modifying parts of our code that don't need to change.
Yes, using IMediator promotes loose coupling. But we already accomplished that by using well-defined abstractions. Adding layer upon layer of indirection doesn't multiply that benefit. If you've got enough abstraction that it's easy to write unit tests, you've got enough.
Vague dependencies make it easier to violate the Single Responsibility Principle
Suppose you have a class for placing orders, and it depends on ICommandHandler<PlaceOrderCommand>. What happens if someone tries to sneak in something that doesn't belong there, like a command to update user data? They'll have to add a new dependency, ICommandHandler<ChangeUserAddressCommand>. What happens if they want to keep piling more stuff into that class, violating the SRP? They'll have to keep adding more dependencies. That doesn't prevent them from doing it, but at least it shines a light on what's happening.
On the other hand, what if you can add all sorts of random stuff into a class without adding more dependencies? The class depends on an abstraction that can do anything. It can place orders, update addresses, request sales history, whatever, and all without adding a single new dependency. That's the same problem you get if you inject an IoC container into a class where it doesn't belong. It's a single class or interface that can be used to request all sorts of dependencies. It's a service locator.
IMediator doesn't cause SRP violations, and its absence won't prevent them. But explicit, specific dependencies guide us away from such violations.
The Mediator Pattern
Curiously, using MediatR doesn't usually have anything to do with the mediator
pattern. The mediator pattern promotes loose coupling by having objects interact with a mediator rather than directly with each other. If we're already depending on an abstraction like an ICommandHandler then the tight coupling that the mediator pattern prevents doesn't exist in the first place.
The mediator pattern also encapsulates complex operations so that they appear simpler from the outside.
return mediator.Send(request);
is not simpler than
return requestHandler.HandleRequest(request);
The complexity of the two interactions is identical. Nothing is "mediated." Imagine that you're about to swipe your credit card at the grocery store, and then someone offers to simplify your complex interaction by leading you to another register where you do exactly the same thing.
What about CQRS?
A mediator is neutral when it comes to CQRS (unless we have two separate mediators, like ICommandMediator and IQueryMediator.) It seems counterproductive to separate our command handlers from our query handlers and then inject a single interface which in effect brings them back together and exposes all of our commands and queries in one place. At the very least it's hard to say that it helps us to keep them separate.
IMediator is used to invoke command and query handlers, but it has nothing to do with the extent to which they are segregated. If they were segregated before we added a mediator, they still are. If our query handler does something it shouldn't, the mediator will still happily invoke it.
I hope it doesn't sound like a mediator ran over my dog. But it's certainly not a silver bullet that sprinkles CQRS on our code or even necessarily improves our architecture.
We should ask, what are the benefits? What undesirable consequences could it have? Do I need that tool, or can I obtain the benefits I want without those consequences?
What I am asserting is that once we're already depending on abstractions, further steps to "hide" a class's dependencies usually add no value. They make it harder to read and understand, and erode our ability to detect and prevent other code smells.

Partly this was answered here: MediatR when and why I should use it? vs 2017 webapi
The biggest benefit of using MediaR(or MicroBus, or any other mediator implementation) is isolating and/or segregating your logic (one of the reasons its popular way to use CQRS) and a good foundation for implementing decorator pattern (so something like ASP.NET Core MVC filters). From MediatR 3.0 there's an inbuilt support for this (see Behaviours) (instead of using IoC decorators)
You can use the decorator pattern with services (classes like FooService) too. And you can use CQRS with services too (FooReadService, FooWriteService)
Other than that it's opinion-based, and use what you want to achieve your goal. The end result shouldn't make any difference except for code maintenance.
Additional reading:
Baking Round Shaped Apps with MediatR
(which compares custom mediator implementation with the one MediatR provides and porting process)
Is it good to handle multiple requests in a single handler?

Dependency Injection vs Abstract Factory - choosing the right pattern [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm developing tool that migrates issues from old to new issue tracking system. I have separated everything with interfaces, but I'm not sure what's the best way to glue it back together. I have 3 dependencies, that require runtime data:
INewSystemClient - client to connect to new system
IRetryStrategy - handles timeouts and retries
IMigrationSettings
These 3 dependencies are dependencies of many others. I couldn't figure out other way to glue everything, than registering these 3 as singletons (via DI container). I also know, that singletons are considered a bad pattern, so I'm considering switching to abstract factory.
Example relationship which forced me to use singleton:
Dependency1(INewSystemClient client, ...) // constructor for Dependency1
Dependency2(INewSystemClient client, ...) // constructor for Dependency2
INewSystemClient requires runtime data like user, pw, host etc.
Should I switch to abstract factory and make factory create objects instead of DI container?

I think you are confusing terms just like a Singleton pattern (most say it's an anti-pattern now) is not the same as a singleton instance in your IOC, an Abstract factory pattern is not the same as a DI factory. What you need to think about is scopes or when the object is created and disposed.
In your desktop app there can be multiple scopes in which you can register an object (On an App level or "a singleton", on a Module level, on a thread level, on a Page level...) This usually depends on the framework you are using (Prism, MvvmLight, caliburn.micro...) if you are building you own system you might want to look how some of the other frameworks did it.
I know Unity has a cool way of handling factories and lazy initializations.
Usually a singleton instance is best used for stuff that won't be accessed in multiple threads that will change some values. This is when you need to create locks and you can slow things down in a big way like blocking your UI thread. For example if you have an HttpClient that just call a single backend api that every one can use it would make sense to make it a singleton scope.
If for example you want to write to a database you might want to have a different EF context per page so the entity tracking doesn't happen on two page.

I have 3 dependencies, that require runtime data:
From your question it is unclear how those dependencies consume runtime data. If they require it during initialization, that's a code smell. If you are passing along that runtime data through method calls on already initialized (and immutable) classes, that's completely fine.
I also know, that singletons are considered a bad pattern, so I'm considering switching to abstract factory.
Filip Cordas already touched this, but I like to repeat: You are confusing two things. When it comes to applying DI, the Singleton Pattern is a bad thing, but having a single instance of some class at runtime (a.k.a. the Singleton Lifestyle) is completely fine. Some (like me) prefer making all components to be registered with the Singleton Lifestyle, since this forces immutability and statelessness, which simplifies registration and prevents all kinds of common misconfigurations, such as Captive Dependencies.
Should I switch to abstract factory and make factory create objects instead of DI container?
As explained here, Abstract Factories are typically not the right solution, and I consider them a code smell. They are typically used to build up application components using runtime data, but as stated earlier, application components should not require runtime data during construction.

Should I avoid using Dependency Injection and IoC?

In my mid-size project I used static classes for repositories, services etc. and it actually worked very well, even if the most of programmers will expect the opposite. My codebase was very compact, clean and easy to understand. Now I tried to rewrite everything and use IoC (Invertion of Control) and I was absolutely disappointed. I have to manually initialize dozen of dependencies in every class, controller etc., add more projects for interfaces and so on. I really don't see any benefits in my project and it seems that it causes more problems than solves. I found the following drawbacks in IoC/DI:
much bigger codesize
ravioli-code instead of spaghetti-code
slower performance, need to initialize all dependencies in constructor even if the method I want to call has only one dependency
harder to understand when no IDE is used
some errors are pushed to run-time
adding additional dependency (DI framework itself)
new staff have to learn DI first in order to work with it
a lot of boilerplate code, which is bad for creative people (for example copy instances from constructor to properties...)
We do not test the entire codebase, but only certain methods and use real database. So, should Dependency Injection be avoided when no mocking is required for testing?

The majority of your concerns seem to boil down to either misuse or misunderstanding.
much bigger codesize
This is usually a result of properly respecting both the Single Responsibility Principle and the Interface Segregation Principle. Is it drastically bigger? I suspect not as large as you claim. However, what it is doing is most likely boiling down classes to specific functionality, rather than having "catch-all" classes that do anything and everything. In most cases this is a sign of healthy separation of concerns, not an issue.
ravioli-code instead of spaghetti-code
Once again, this is most likely causing you to think in stacks instead of hard-to-see dependencies. I think this is a great benefit since it leads to proper abstraction and encapsulation.
slower performance Just use a fast container. My favorites are SimpleInjector and LightInject.
need to initialize all dependencies in constructor even
if the method I want to call has only one dependency
Once again, this is a sign that you are violating the Single Responsibility Principle. This is a good thing because it is forcing you to logically think through your architecture rather than adding willy-nilly.
harder to understand when no IDE is used some errors are pushed to run-time
If you are STILL not using an IDE, shame on you. There's no good argument for it with modern machines. In addition, some containers (SimpleInjector) will validate on first run if you so choose. You can easily detect this with a simple unit test.
adding additional dependency (DI framework itself)
You have to pick and choose your battles. If the cost of learning a new framework is less than the cost of maintaining spaghetti code (and I suspect it will be), then the cost is justified.
new staff have to learn DI first in order to work with it
If we shy away from new patterns, we never grow. I think of this as an opportunity to enrich and grow your team, not a way to hurt them. In addition, the tradeoff is learning the spaghetti code which might be far more difficult than picking up an industry-wide pattern.
a lot of boilerplate code which is bad for creative people (for example copy instances from constructor to properties...)
This is plain wrong. Mandatory dependencies should always be passed in via the constructor. Only optional dependencies should be set via properties, and that should only be done in very specific circumstances since oftentimes it is violating the Single Responsibility Principle.
We do not test the entire codebase, but only certain methods and use real database. So, should Dependency Injection be avoided when no mocking is required for testing?
I think this might be the biggest misconception of all. Dependency Injection isn't JUST for making testing easier. It is so you can glance at the signature of a class constructor and IMMEDIATELY know what is required to make that class tick. This is impossible with static classes since classes can call both up and down the stack whenever they like without rhyme or reason. Your goal should be to add consistency, clarity, and distinction to your code. This is the single biggest reason to use DI and it is why I highly recommend you revisit it.

Although IoC/DI is not some silver bullet that works in all cases, it is possible that you didn't apply it correctly. The set of principles behind Dependency Injection take time to master, or at least, it sure did for me. When applied right, it can bring (among others) the following benefits:
Improved testability
Improved flexibility
Improved maintainability
Improved parallel development
From your question, I can already extract some things that might have gone wrong in your case:
I have to manually initialize dozen of dependencies in every class
This implies that each class you create is responsible of creating the dependencies it requires. This is an anti-pattern known as Control Freak. A class should not new up its dependencies itself. You might even have applied the Service Locator anti-pattern where your class requests its dependencies by calling the container (or an abstraction that represents the container) to get a particular dependency. A class should just define the dependencies it requires as constructor arguments.
dozen of dependencies
This statement implies that you are violating the Single Responsibly Principle. This is actually not coupled to IoC/DI, your old code probably already violated the Single Responsibility Principle causing it to become hard to understand and maintain for other developers. It's often hard for the original author to understand why others have a hard time maintaining code, since the thing you wrote often fits nicely in your head. Often the violation of the SRP will cause others to have trouble understanding and maintaining code. And testing classes that violate SRP is often even harder. A class should have half a dozen dependencies at most.
add more projects for interfaces and so on
This implies that you are violating the Reused Abstraction Principle. In general, the majority of components/classes in your application should be covered by a dozen of abstractions. For instance, all classes that implement some use case probably deserve one single (generic) abstraction. Classes that implement queries also deserve one abstraction. For the systems that I write, 80% to 95% of my components (classes that contain the application's behavior) are covered by 5 to 12 (mostly generic) abstractions. Most of the time you don't need to create a new project solely for the interfaces.
Most of the time I place those interfaces in the root of the same project.
much bigger codesize
The amount of code you write will initially not be very different. The practice of Dependency Injection however, only works great when applying SOLID as well, and SOLID promotes small focussed classes. Classes with one single responsibility. This means that you will have many small classes that are easy to understand and easy to compose into flexible systems. And don't forget: we shouldn't strive to write less code, but rather more maintainable code.
However, with a good SOLID design and the right abstractions in place, I experienced actually having to write much less code than I had to before. For instance, applying certain cross-cutting concerns (like logging, audit trailing, authorization, etc) can be applied by just writing a few lines of code in the infrastructure layer of the application, instead of having it to be spread out throughout the complete application. It even lead me to be able to do things that werent feasible before, because they forced me to make sweeping changes throughout the entire code base, which was so time consuming that management didn't allow me to do so.
ravioli-code instead of spaghetti-code
harder to understand when no IDE is used
This is kind of true. Dependency Injection promotes classes to become decoupled from one another. This can sometimes make it harder to browse to a code base, since a class usually depends on an abstraction instead of a concrete classes. In the past I found the flexibily that DI gives me outweigh the cost of finding the implementation by far. With Visual Studio 2015 I can simply do CTRL + F12 to find the implementations of an interface. If there is just one implementation, Visual Studio will jump right to that implementation.
slower performance
This is not true. The performance doesn't have to be any different than working with a code base of only static method calls. You however chose to have your classes with a Transient lifestyle which means it you new up instances all over the place. In my last applications I created all my classes just once per application, which gives roughly the same performance as only having static method calls, but with the benefit of the application being very flexible and maintainable. But note that even if you decide to new complete graphs of objects for each (web) request, the performance cost will most likely be orders of magnitude lower than any I/O (database, file system and web services calls) that you perform during that request, even with the slowest DI containers.
some errors are pushed to run-time
adding additional dependency (DI framework itself)
These issues both imply the usage of a DI library. DI libraries do object composition at runtime. A DI library however is not a required tool when practicing Dependency Injection. Small applications can benefit from using Dependency Injection without a tool; a practice called Pure DI. Your application might not benefit from using a DI container, but most applications actually benefit from using Dependency Injection (when used correctly) as a practice. Againt: tools are optional, writing maintainable code isn't.
But even if you use a DI library, there are libraries that have tools built-in that allow you to verify and diagnose your configuration. They won't give you compile-time support, but they allow you to run this analysis either when the application starts up or using a unit test. This prevents you from doing a regression on the complete application just to verify whether your container is wired correctly. My advise is to pick a DI container that helps you in detecting these configuration errors.
new staff have to learn DI first in order to work with it
This is kind of true, but Dependency Injection itself isn't actually hard to learn. What is actually hard to learn is to apply the SOLID principles correctly, and you need to learn this anyway when you want to write applications that need to be maintained by more than one developer for a considerate period of time. I rather invest into teaching the developers on my team to write SOLID code instead of just letting them crank out code; that will surely cause a maintenance hell later on.
a lot of boilerplate code
There is some boilerplate code when we look at code written in C# 6, but this isn't actually that bad, especially when you consider the advantages it gives. And future versions of C# will remove the boilerplate that is mainly caused by having to define constructors that take in arguments that are null-checked and assigned to private variables. C# 7 or 8 will surely fix this when record types and non-nullable reference types are introduced.
which is bad for creative people
I'm sorry, but this argument is plain bullshit. I've seen this argument used over and over again as an excuse to write bad code by developers who didn't want to learn about design patterns and software principles and practices. Being creative is no excuse for writing code that no one else can understand or code that is impossible to test. We need to apply accepted patterns and practices and within that boundary there is enough room to be creative, while writing good code. Writing code is not an art; it’s a craft.
Like I said, DI is not appropriate in all cases, and the practices around it take time to master. I can advise you to read the book Dependency Injection in .NET by Mark Seemann; it will give many answers and will give you a good sense how and when to apply it, and when not.

Be warned: I hate IoC.
There are many great answers here which are comforting. The main benefits according to Steven (very strong answer) are:
Improved testability
Improved flexibility
Improved maintainability
Improved scalability
My experiences are very different through, here they are for some balance:
(Bonus) Stupid Repository Pattern
Too often, this is included along with IoC. The repository pattern should only be used to access external data, and where interchangeability is a core expectation.
When you use this, with Entity Framework, you disable all the power of Entity Framework, this also happens with Service Layers.
Eg. Calling:
var employees = peopleService.GetPeople(false, false, true, true); //Terrible
It should be:
var employees = db.People.ActiveOnly().ToViewModel();
In this case using extension methods.
Who needs flexibility?
If you have no plans to change service implementations, you don't need it. If you think you'll have more than one implementation in the future, perhaps add IoC then, and only for that part.
But "Testability"!
Entity Framework (and probably other ORMs too), allow you to change the connection-string to point to an in-memory database. Granted, that's only available starting EF7. However, it can simply be a new (proper) test database in a staging environment.
Do you have other special test resources and service points? In this day and age, they're probably different WebService URI endpoints, which can also be configured in App.Config / Web.Config.
Automated Tests make your code maintainable
TDD - If it's a Web Application, use Jasmine or Selenium and have automated behaviour tests. This tests everything all the way to the user. It's an investment over time, starting by covering critical features and functions.
DevOps/SysOps - Maintain scripts for provisioning your whole environment (this is also best practice), spin up a staging environment and run all the tests. You can also clone your production environment and run your tests there. Don't make "maintainable" and "testable" your excuse for choosing IoC. Start with those requirements and find the best ways to meet those requirements.
Scalability - in what way?
(I probably need to read the book)
For coder scalability, Distributed Code Version Control, is the norm (although I hate merging).
For human resource scalability, you shouldn't be wasting days designing extra abstract layers for your project.
For production concurrent user scalability, you should be building, testing, then improving.
For server throughput scalability, you need to think a lot higher-level than IoC. Are you going to run a server on the customer LAN? Can you replicate your data? Are you replicating at the database level or application level? Is offline access important while mobile? These are substantial architecture questions, where IoC is rarely the answer.
Try F12
If you're using an IDE (which you should be doing), such as Visual Studio Community Edition, then you'll know how handy F12 can be, to navigate around code.
With IoC you'll be taken to the Interface, and then you'll need to find all references using a particular interface. Only one extra step, but for a tool that's used so much, it frustrates me.
Steven is on the ball
With Visual Studio 2015 I can simply do CTRL + F12 to find the
implementations of an interface.
Yes, but you have to then trawl through a list of both usages as well as the declaration. (Actually I think in the latest VS, the declaration lists separately, but it's still an extra mouse click, taking your hands away from the keyboard. And I should say this is a limitation of Visual Studio, not able to take you to an only interface implementation directly.

There are many 'textbook' arguments in favor of using IoC, but in my personal experience, the gains are/were:
Possibility to test only parts of the project, and mock some other parts. For example, if you have a component returning configuration from DB, it's easy to mock it so that your test can work without a real DB. With static classes this is not possible.
Better visibility and control of dependencies. With the static classes it's very easy to add some dependecies without even noticing, that can create problems later. With IoC this is more explicit and visible.
More explicit initialization order. With static classes this can be often a black box, and there can be latent problems due to circular usage.
The only inconvenience for me was that by placing everything before interfaces it's not possible to navigate directly to the implementation from the usage (F12).
However, it is the developers of a project who can judge best the pros and cons in the particular case.

Was there a reason why you didn't choose to use an IOC Library (StructureMap, Ninject, Autofac, etc)?
Using any of these would have made your life much easier.
Although David L has already made an excellent set of commentaries on your points, I'll add my own as well.
Much bigger codesize
I am not sure how you ended up with a larger codebase; the typical setup for an IOC library is pretty small, and since you are defining your invariants (dependencies) in the class constructors, you are also removing some code (i.e. the "new xyz()" stuff) that you don't need any more.
Ravioli-code instead of spaghetti-code
I happen to quite like ravioli :)
Slower performance, need to initialize all dependencies in constructor even if the method I want to call has only one dependency
If you are doing this then you are not really using Dependency Injection at all. You should be receiving ready-made, fully loaded object graphs via the dependency arguments declared in the constructor parameters of the class itself - not creating them in the constructor!
Most modern IOC libraries are ridiculously fast, and will never, ever be a performance problem.
Here's a good video that proves the point.
Harder to understand when no IDE is used
That's true, but it also means you can take the opportunity to think in terms of abstractions. So for example, you can look at a piece of code
public class Something
{
readonly IFrobber _frobber;
public Something(IFrobber frobber)
{
_frobber=frobber;
}
public void LetsFrobSomething(Thing theThing)
{
_frobber.Frob(theThing)
}
}
When you are looking at this code and trying to figure out if it works, or if it is the root cause of a problem, you can ignore the actual IFrobber implementation; it just represents the abstract capability to Frob something, and you don't need to mentally carry along how any particular Frobber might do its work. you can focus on making sure that this class does what it's supposed to - namely, delegating some work to a Frobber of some kind.
Note also that you don't even need to use interfaces here; you can go ahead and inject concrete implementations as well. However that tends to violate the Dependency Inversion principle (which is only tangenitally related to the DI we are talking about here) because it forces the class to depend on a concretion as opposed to an abstraction.
Some errors are pushed to run-time
No more or less than they would be with manually constructing graphs in the constructor;
Adding additional dependency (DI framework itself)
That is also true, but most IOC libraries are pretty small and unobtrusive, and at some point you have to decide if the tradeoff of having a slightly larger production artifact is worth it (it really is)
New staff have to learn DI first in order to work with it
That isn't really any different than would be the case with any new technology :) Learning to use an IOC library tends to open the mind to other possibilities like TDD, the SOLID principles and so forth, which is never a bad thing!
A lot of boilerplate code, which is bad for creative people (for example copy instances from constructor to properties...)
I don't understand this one, how you might end up with much boilerplate code; I wouldn't count storing the given dependencies in private readonly members as boilerplate worth talking about - bearing in mind that if you have more than 3 or 4 dependencies per class you are likely to be in violation of the SRP and should rethink your design.
Finally if you are not convinced by any of the arguments put forth here, I would still recommend you read Mark Seeman's "Dependency Injection in .Net". (or indeed anything else he has to say on DI which you can find on his blog).
I promise you will learn some useful things and I can tell you, it changed the way I write software for the better.

if you have to initialise dependencies manually in the code, you're doing something wrong. General patter for IoC is constructor injection or, probably, property injection. Class or controller shouldn't know about DI container at all.
Generally, all you have to do is:
configure container, like Interface = Class in Singleton scope
Use it, like Controller(Interface interface) {}
Benefit from controlling all dependencies in one place
I dont see any boilerplate code or slower performance or anything else you described. I can't really imaging how to write more or less complex app without it.
But generally, you need to decide what is more important. To please "creative people" or build maintainable and robust app.
Btw, to create property or filed from constructor you can use Alt+Enter in R# and it do all the job for you.

Best way to deal with conflated business and presentation code?

Considering a hypothetical situation where an old, legacy presentation library has been maintained over the years, and has gradually had more and more business logic coded into it through a process of hasty corrections and lack of proper architectural oversight. Alternatively, consider a business class or namespace that is not separated from presentation by assembly boundaries, and was thus capable of referencing something like System.Windows.Forms without being forced to add a reference (a much more sobering action than a simple using clause).
In situations like this, it's not unimaginable that the business code used by this UI code will eventually be called upon for reuse. What is a good way to refactor the two layers apart to allow for this?
I'm loosely familiar with design patterns--at least in principle anyway. However, I don't have a whole ton of practical experience so I'm somewhat unsure of my intuitions. I've started along the path of using the Strategy pattern for this. The idea is to identify the places where the business logic calls up to UI components to ask the user a question and gather data, and then to encapsulate those into a set of interfaces. Each method on that interface will contain the UI-oriented code from the original workflow, and the UI class will then implement that interface.
The new code that wants to reuse the business logic in question will also implement this interface, but substitute either new windows or possibly pre-fab or parameterized answers to the questions originally answered by the UI components. This way, the biz logic can be treated as a real library, albeit with a somewhat awkward interface parameter passed to some of its methods.
Is this a decent approach? How better should I go about this? I will defer to your collective internet wisdom.
Thanks!

I humbly suggest Model–View–Controller - MVC has a high probability as a successful solution to your problem. It separates various logic, much as you describe.
HTH

You seem to be taking a good approach, in which you break dependencies between concrete elements in your design to instead depend on abstractions (interfaces). When you break dependencies like this, you should immediately start using unit tests to cover your legacy code base and to evolve the design with improved assurance.
I've found the book Working Effectively with Legacy Code to be invaluable in these situations. Also, don't jump right into the patterns without first looking at the principles of object oriented design, like the SOLID principles. They often guide your choice of patterns and decisions about the evolution of the system.

I would approach it by clearly identifying the entities and the actions they can do or can be done to them. Then one by one try to start creating independent business logic objects for those refactoring the logic out of the UI, making the UI call to the BL objects.
At that point if I understand your scenario correctly you would have a hand full of BL objects, some portion of which made win forms calls, the win forms calls would need to be promoted out into the UI layer.
Then as JustBoo says, I think you'll have a distinct enough situation to start abstracting out controllers from your BL and UI and make it all function in an MVC design.

Okay, given your various comments, I would take Mr. Hoffa's advice and extend it. I'm sure you've heard hard problems should be broken down into ever smaller units of work until they can be "conquered."
Using that technique, coupled with the methodologies of Refactoring could solve your problems. There is a book and lots of information on the web about it. You now have a link. That page has a ton of links to information.
One more link from the author of the book.
So, you refactor, slowly but surely to the creamy goodness of MVC, step-by-step.
HTH