We Keep Coding

Share my dbContext with all my repository/service class?

I'm working on a classic .Net Framework Web API solution.
I have 3 layers. Let's call them
MVC - with POST, GET, UPDATE, DELETE controllers.
BIZZ - for business with my service class. My service class are king of repositories with CREATE, READ, UPDATE, DELETE and specific methods.
DATA - with POCO and definition of DB context.
I will not develop the EF layer. It is a classic Entity Framework project with POCO.Here is a sample of a Service and with BaseService class
public abstract class Service : IDisposable
{
protected DbContext dbContext = new DbContext();
public void Dispose()
{
dbContext.Dispose();
}
}
Then I have a cart service and a order service. They are similar in their structure so I will only write the code useful for this example.
public class CartService : Service
{
public Cart Create(Cart cart)
{
// Create the cart
}
public Cart Read(Guid id)
{
// Read
}
public Cart Update(Cart cart)
{
// I do some check first then
}
public void Delete(Cart cart)
{
// Delete
}
public void Checkout(Cart cart)
{
// Validation of cart removed in this example
dbContext.Cart.Attach(cart);
cart.DateCheckout = DateTime.UtcNow;
dbContext.Entry(cart).State = EntityState.Modified; // I think this line can be removed
dbContext.SaveChanges();
using (var orderService = new OrderService())
{
foreach (var order in cart.Orders)
{
order.DateCheckout = cart.DateCheckout;
order.Status = OrderStatus.PD; // pending
orderService.Update(order);
}
}
}
}
public class OrderService : Service
{
public Cart Create(Cart cart)
{
// Create the cart
}
public Cart Read(Guid id)
{
// Read
}
public Cart Update(Cart cart)
{
dbContext.Entry(order).State = EntityState.Modified;
dbContext.SaveChanges();
// More process here...
return order;
}
public void Delete(Cart cart)
{
// Delete
}
}
So, I have a service, cart service, that call another service, order service. I must work like this because I cannot simply accept the cart and all orders in it as it is. When I save a new order or update an existing order I must create a record in some other tables in other databases. The code is not in my example. So, I repeat I have a service that call another service and then I have 2 dbContext. At best this just create 2 context in memory, at worst this create exception. Exception like you cannot attach an entity to 2 contexts or this entity is not in context.
Well, I would like all my service use the same context. I suppose you will al tell me to use Dependency Injection. Yes, well ok but I don't want, each time I create a new service have to pass the context. I don't want to have to do that:
public void Checkout(Cart cart)
{
// ...
using (var orderService = new OrderService(dbContext))
{
// ...
}
}
I would like to do something that impact my base service only if possible. A singleton maybe... At this point I can see your face. Yes I know Singleton are soo bad. Yes but i'm doing a IIS Web API. Each request is a new instance. I don't care about the impact of the singleton. And I can load my database by changing the connection string in config file so the benefit of DI is there already. Well, I also know it is possible to have singleton with DI. I just don't know how.
So, what can I do to be sure I share my dbContext with all my services?

Disclaimer: This example is not intended to be a "good" one and certainly does not follow best practices, but faced with an existing legacy code base which from your example already suffers from a number of questionable practices, this should get you past the multiple context issues.
Essentially if you're not already using a IoC Container to perform dependency injection then what you need is to introduce a unit of work to manage the scope of a DbContext where your base Service class provides a DbContext provided by the unit of work. (Essentially a DbContext Registry)
For the unit of work and assuming EF6 I would recommend Mehdime's DbContextScope which is available as a NuGet package. Alternatively you can find the source code on Github and implement something similar without too much trouble. I like this pattern because it leverages the CallContext to serve as the communication layer between the ContextScope (Unit of Work) created by the DbContextScopeFactory and the AmbientDbContextScope. This will probably take a little time to get your head around but it injects very nicely into legacy applications where you want to leverage the Unit of Work and don't have dependency injection.
What it would look like:
In your Service class you would introduce the AmbientDbContextLocator to resolve your DbContext:
private readonly IAmbientDbContextLocator _contextLocator = new AmbientDbContextLocator();
protected DbContext DbContext
{
get { return _contextLocator.Get<DbContext>(); }
}
And that's it. Later as you refactor to accommodate Dependency injection, just inject the AmbientDbContextLocator instead of 'new'ing it up.
Then, in your web API controllers where you are using your services, (not the services themselves) you need to add the DbContextScopeFactory instance..
private readonly IDbContextScopeFactory _contextScopeFactory = new DbContextScopeFactory();
Lastly, in your API methods, when you want to call your services, you need to simply use the ContextScopeFactory to create a context scope. The AmbientDbContextLocators will retrieve the DbContext from this context scope. The context scope you create with the factory will be done in a using block to ensure your contexts are disposed. So, using your Checkout method as an example, it would look like:
In your Web API [HttpPost] Checkout() method:
using (var contextScope = _contextScopeFactory.Create())
{
using(var service = new CartService())
{
service.Checkout();
}
contextScope.SaveChanges();
}
Your cart service Checkout method would remain relatively unchanged, only instead of accessing dbContext as a variable (new DbContext()) it will access the DbContext property which gets the context through the context locator.
The Services can continue to call DbContext.SaveChanges(), but this isn't necessary and the changes will not be committed to the DB until the contextScope.SaveChanges() is called. Each service will have its own instance of the Context Locator rather than the DbContext and these will be dependent on you defining a ContextScope to function. If you call a Service method that tries to access the DbContext without being within a using (var contextScope = _contextScopeFactory.Create()) block you will receive an error. This way all of your service calls, even nested service calls (CartService calls OrderService) will be interacting with the same DbContext instance.
Even if you just want to read data, you can leverage a slightly faster DbContext using _contextScopeFactory.CreateReadOnly() which will help guard against unexpected/disallowed calls to SaveChanges().

When using the ASP.NET Core stack, the tutorial for using EF with it defaults to using DI to provide your DB context, just not with a service layer. That said, it actually does the right thing for this out of the box. I'll give a brief rundown of the bare minimum necessary for this to work, using whatever the latest versions of ASP.NET Core Web API and EF Core were on NuGet at the time of writing.
First, let's get the boilerplate out of the way, starting with the model:
Models.cs
public class ShopContext : DbContext
{
public ShopContext(DbContextOptions options) : base(options) {}
// We add a GUID here so we're able to tell it's the same object later.
public string Id { get; } = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
public DbSet<Cart> Carts { get; set; }
public DbSet<Order> Orders { get; set; }
}
public class Cart
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Order
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Then some bare-bones services:
Services.cs
public class CartService
{
ShopContext _ctx;
public CartService(ShopContext ctx)
{
_ctx = ctx;
Console.WriteLine($"Context in CartService: {ctx.Id}");
}
public async Task<List<Cart>> List() => await _ctx.Carts.ToListAsync();
public async Task<Cart> Create(string name)
{
return (await _ctx.Carts.AddAsync(new Cart {Name = name})).Entity;
}
}
public class OrderService
{
ShopContext _ctx;
public OrderService(ShopContext ctx)
{
_ctx = ctx;
Console.WriteLine($"Context in OrderService: {ctx.Id}");
}
public async Task<List<Order>> List() => await _ctx.Orders.ToListAsync();
public async Task<Order> Create(string name)
{
return (await _ctx.Orders.AddAsync(new Order {Name = name})).Entity;
}
}
The only notable things here are: the context comes in as a constructor parameter as God intended, and we log the ID of the context to verify when it gets created with what.
Then our controller:
ShopController.cs
[ApiController]
[Route("[controller]")]
public class ShopController : ControllerBase
{
ShopContext _ctx;
CartService _cart;
OrderService _order;
public ShopController(ShopContext ctx, CartService cart, OrderService order)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Context in ShopController: {ctx.Id}");
_ctx = ctx;
_cart = cart;
_order = order;
}
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IEnumerable<string>> Get()
{
var carts = await _cart.List();
var orders = await _order.List();
return (from c in carts select c.Name).Concat(from o in orders select o.Name);
}
[HttpPost]
public async Task Post(string name)
{
await _cart.Create(name);
await _order.Create(name);
await _ctx.SaveChangesAsync();
}
}
As above, we take the context as a constructor parameter to triple-check it's what it should be; we also need it to call SaveChanges at the end of an operation. (You can refactor this out of controllers if you want to, but they'll work just fine as units of work for now.)
The part that ties this together is the DI configuration:
Startup.cs
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddControllers();
// Use whichever provider you have here, this is where you grab a connection string from the app configuration.
services.AddDbContext<ShopContext>(options =>
options.UseInMemoryDatabase("Initrode"));
services.AddScoped<CartService>();
services.AddScoped<OrderService>();
}
AddDbContext() defaults to registering a DbContext to be created per-request by the container. Web API provides the AddControllers method that puts those into the DI container, and we also register our services manually.
The rest of Startup.cs I've left as-is.
Starting this up and opening https://localhost:5001/shop should log something like:
Context in CartService: b213966e-35f2-4cc9-83d1-98a5614742a3
Context in OrderService: b213966e-35f2-4cc9-83d1-98a5614742a3
Context in ShopController: b213966e-35f2-4cc9-83d1-98a5614742a3
with the same GUID for all three lines in a request, but a different GUID between requests.
A little additional explanation of what goes on above:
Registering a component in a container (using Add() and such above) means telling the container those components exist and that it should create them for you when asked, as well as what identifiers they're available under and how to create them. The defaults for this are more or less "make the component available as its class, and create it by calling its one public constructor, passing other registered components into it" - the container looks at the constructor signature to figure this out.
"Scoped" in an ASP.NET Core app means "per-request." I think in this case one could also use services with a transient lifetime - a new one created every time it's needed, but they'll still get the same DbContext as long as they're created while handling the same request. Which one to do is a design consideration; the main constraint is that you can't inject shorter-lived components into longer-lived components without having to use more complex techniques, which is why I favour having all components as short-lived as possible. In other words, I only make things longer-lived when they actually hold some state that needs to live for that time, while also doing that as sparingly as possible because state bad. (Just recently I had to refactor an unfortunate design where my services were singletons, but I wanted my repositories to be per-request so as to be able to inject the currently logged in user's information into the repository to be able to automatically add the "created by" and "updated by" fields.)
You'll note that with support for doing things this way being built-in to both ASP.NET Core and EF Core, there's actually very little extra code involved. Also, the only thing needed to go from "injecting a context into your controllers" (as the tutorial does) to "injecting a context into services that you use from your controllers" is adding the services into DI - since the controller and context are already under DI, anything new you add can be injected into them and vice versa.
This should give you a quick introduction into how to make things "just work" and shows you the basic use case of a DI container: you declaratively tell it or it infers "this is an X", "this is an Y", "this is a Z and it needs to be created using an X and a Y"; then when you ask the container to give you a Z, it will automagically first create an X and Y, then create Z with them. They also manage the scope and lifetime of these objects, i.e. only create one of a type for an API request. Beyond that it's a question of experience with them and familiarity with a given container - say Ninject and Autofac are much more powerful than the built-in one - but it's variations on the same idea of declaratively describing how to create an object possibly using other objects (its dependencies) and having the container "figure out" how to wire things together.

Is there a good way to achieve dependency injection in ASP.NET MVC application without any DI Container?

So I have created the simplest of the applications using ASP.NET MVC (in .NET Framework) and I want to demo dependency injection to a junior using this. it is very simple code, even a newbie can understand it.
public interface IMovieRepository
{
MyViewModel GetDetails(string movie);
}
public class MoviesController : Controller
{
[HttpPost]
public async Task<ActionResult> Search(string movie)
{
// Confusion here! Is the below line a good place to inject dependency
IMovieRepository repository = new DBMovieRepository(); // <-- it can be DBMovieRepository or WebServiceMovieRepository or MockMovieRepository
MovieFinder finder = new MovieFinder(repository);
MyViewModel model = await finder.Find(movie);
return View(model);
}
}
public class MovieFinder
{
private IMovieRepository _repository;
public MovieFinder(IMovieRepository repository)
{
_repository = repository;
}
public async Task<MyViewModel> Find(string movie)
{
// Connect to database and return a detailed object
var myViewModelObj = _repository.GetDetails(movie);
return myViewModelObj;
}
}
public class DBMovieRepository : IMovieRepository
{
public MyViewModel GetDetails()
{
// Code for fetching data from a database
}
}
public class WebServiceMovieRepository : IMovieRepository
{
public MyViewModel GetDetails()
{
// Code for fetching data from a IMDB webservice
}
}
public class MockMovieRepository : IMovieRepository
{
public MyViewModel GetDetails()
{
// Code for returning a mock object here
}
}
There is an inline comment in the code where I asked that my confusion is here. Is that a good place to inject dependencies or do I have to inject it in the MoviesController constructor. If yes, then how will I pass it to the constructor? This is a .NET Framework 4.5 application and I don't want to complicate the lesson by introducing a DI Container and just want to use Pure DI to clarify the concept to my junior.

This is a .NET Framework 4.5 application and I don't want to complicate the lesson by introducing a DI Container and just want to use Pure DI to clarify the concept to my junior.
That literally doesn't make sense.
Pure DI
Or Dependency Injection simply means using IOC to provide an Instance of a Dependency to the object (via Constructor or Property).
Inversion of Control simply means that instead of the dependent object creating the Dependency, you invert control to something else to provide the instance.
You can Architect your Controller to use IOC. You can't DI without something providing the instance. The most lightweight/semi-hacky way to write your DI with minimum effort using your stack is to write your own Controller Factory to inspect your constructor for its dependencies and inject whatever those dependencies are (or just assume what it needs, pass it... yikes).
Relevant SO Question of Mine: My MVC Custom ControllerFactory works but could it be better?

Using Fluent NHibernate with a Data Access Layer

First a little background: I have a solution with the following 3 projects in it:
MVC Project (User facing website)
API Project (business logic project)
Data Access Project (project where NHibernate lives)
I have the Fluent mappings in the DA layer, and (for now) I build the Hibernate SessionFactory in the GLobal.asax of the MVC site. This is not ideal as I want to have NHibernate completely contained in the DA layer and have the MVC app only communicate with the API layer. Also, I want to build the SessionFactory only once as it is an expensive operation.
To make things more complicated I have an inheritance structure like so:
User object in API layer inherits from
User data object in DA layer inherits from
Data object in DA layer.
Data object is responsible for saving the object to the database as the saving function is the same across all objects and I do not want to repeat code. The problem I am having is how do I save the User object to the database from inside the Data object class while using a SessionFactory that I instantiated when the user logged into the website and can persist through out their session.
If anything is not explained clearly please let me know.

One way to do that would be using the DI pattern, with e.g. Unity.
Implement your data object having a constructor which takes for example an IRepository interface. The implementation of this interface handles the nHibernate session factory...
Your data object could also be generic where T is one for example User data object. Then you implement a methods in data object to e.g. save, update, delete T with the injected IRepository
pseudo code for a data object
public interface IEntity
{
}
public interface IRepository
{
ISession Session { get; }
}
public class DataObjectBase<T> where T : IEntity
{
private IRepository Repository { get; set; }
public DataObjectBase(IRepository repository)
{
this.Repository = repository;
}
public T Get(int id)
{
return Repository.Session.Get<T>(id);
}
public void Save(T value)
{
Repository.Session.Save(value);
}
public void Update(T value)
{
Repository.Session.Update(value);
}
public void Delete(T value)
{
Repository.Session.Delete(value);
}
public IQueryable<T> Query()
{
return Repository.Session.Query<T>();
}
}
Implementation of your specific data object
public class ADataObject : IEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
// [...]
}
Implementation of your data context for the data object
public class ADataObjectContext : DataObjectBase<ADataObject>
{
public ADataObjectContext(IRepository repository)
: base(repository)
{
}
}
A simple example test using Unity
public class Test
{
public void Run()
{
IUnityContainer myContainer = new UnityContainer();
myContainer.RegisterType<IRepository, NHibernateRepository>();
var ctx = myContainer.Resolve<ADataObjectContext>();
var obj = ctx.Query().Where(p => p.Id == 2);
}
}
Of cause you would have to implement the NHibernateRespository to do whatever you want it to.
The UnityContainer initialization should be done within your global.asax within the MVC project. You can also configure Unity via web.config.
The NHibernateRespository should actually be a singleton. This can either be implemented by you, or you simply use the Unity functionality to instantiate your type as singleton. The new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager() does exactly that.
Instead of exposing the session as a property you can of cause expose a method which opens a new session. Or you implement a Begin and End unit of work, which is common practice in web environments...
Other links for a normal repository pattern, and unit of work, unity... or simply search on Google for nhibernate repository pattern
http://slynetblog.blogspot.de/2011/11/in-spite-of-common-now-approach-of.html
http://blog.bobcravens.com/2010/07/using-nhibernate-in-asp-net-mvc/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd203101.aspx

You can use this options:
Using AOP: when a function is called in API layer, AOP creates a session and passes the value parameters in methods or constructors to DA layer.
From MVC project to DA layer, it passes a session to DA layer with parameters in method o constructors, through all the layers.
Thinks the session is always associated with the interface layer.

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
*/

Where to keep dictionaries in app using Dependency Injection

I have a legacy code, and I have a problem with reconstructor it.
At start of my application I load from WCF to property on App (this is SL application) list of users.
Then every control (for sending emails, view calendar and assigning tasks) use this property as
(App.Current as App).Users
Now, I'm trying to create Unit Test for one of controls that use this lists, and I'm stuck.
Should I make a Constructor Injection(I'm using Unity) with App as parameter? Or maybe introduce some class to hold this list?

Updated with OP's implementation as the pseudocode was incomplete.
I propose create an interface for all your application services
Inject IApplicationService to your modules.
You can use this interface for all the services the application provides(probably you will need more). Mock the interface for the unit tests
OP's implemantation
public interface IApplicationService
{
List<User> Users{get;set;}
}
public class ApplicationService : IApplicationService
{
public List<User> Users
{
get { return (App.Current as App).Users; }
set { (App.Current as App).Users = value; }
}
}
public partial class MainWindow : UserControl
{
readonly IApplicationService _applicationService
public MainWindow(IApplicationService applicationService)
{
_applicationService=applicationService;
}
}

I would create a wrapper class that will expose the list of users. In production code this class will just be a wrapper around your App.Current property and it can be injected in the constructor trough Unity.
In your Unit Tests you can easily mock the App parameter and pass it when constructing a new SUT.
Something like:
public interface IUserList
{
List<User> Users { get; }
}
public class SUT
{
private IUserList UserList { get; set; }
public SUT(IUserList userList)
{
this.UserList = userList;
}
}
public class AppUserList : IUserList
{
public List<User> Users
{
get
{
return ((App)App.Current).Users;
}
}
}

For Silverlight there is an extension model called Application Extension Services.
For infrastructure purposes that might be a better alternative than adding properties to your app class and casting App.Currentback and forth.
Downside of that model is the creation of a singleton you would have to initialize for your unit tests. It would also hide the dependency on Users in your consuming classes.
Your users seem to be just data. Making that data an ambient context which can be accessed and edited everywhere in your application will bite you. You don't know who does what with that data and when he does it. This is like a session state.
So making the dependency on your data explicit would be a first step to be able to track abuse of that data.
If it makes sense to you to create a "data holder object" that has a property for Users or directly inject that data into your consumers is up to you. If there is more data than just Usersit is tempting to put all of them into the same central data store object, even if your specific consumers don't need them.

Jimmy's answer is great, but can be provide quite a bit, and some errors fixed. Differences are explained at the bottom below the code/instructions:
Create a public interface: IUserService
public interface IUserService
{
// Implemented functionality as methods where possible for better
// extendability (like IoC)
IEnumerable<User> Users();
// Add any other user service stuff as you see fit.
void AddUser(User user);
}
Write a UserService that implements IUserService
public class UserService : IUserService
{
// If you need DI for this service, follow the same pattern of using
// fields and controller injection. I left examples in comment below.
// private readonly IRepository _repository;
// Constructor is unnecessary if you do not need DI example.
public UserService(/* IRepository repository */)
{
// _repository = repository;
}
// Methods
public IEnumerable<User> Users()
{
return ((App)App.Current).Users;
}
public void AddUser(User user)
{
((App)App.Current).Users.Add(user);
}
}
Inject IUserService into classes via their Constructor
In this case your MainWindow as an example:
public partial class MainWindow : UserControl
{
private readonly IUserService _userService;
public MainWindow(IUserService userService)
{
_userService = userService;
}
// Example method consuming the service
public IEnumerable<User> GetUsers()
{
return _userService.Users();
}
}
Differences:
Separate your User Services from a central Application Service
Better modularity. In addition I use an IApplicationService for more central/global data like Api Keys, Timeouts, cleanup, DB prepping, etc.
Return IEnumerable<T> instead of List<T>
This is just a golden rule of thumb for keeping things dry and not imposing hard instantiations on your consuming classes. Refactoring is easier/safer, and your code more extensible.
Use methods instead of properties
This is preference, but I think it smart in a service layer to use methods where possible so that you can introduce filters and overloads or continue to use dependency injection - for example, you could add GetUsers(string lastName), GetUsers(string lastName, string firstName) and maintain a clean interface for your consuming classes.
Cast App.Current without the as keyword
This is a good practice because using the as keyword means when the cast fails it will return null, rather than throw an exception. I prefer the exception because 99% of the time, if your cast fails, your next operations will too. :)
Enjoy!