We Keep Coding

IoC Instantiate latest time possible

In my application I have many services with I use the following pattern:
In the same file as the interface I define a static factory method which is controlled by the IoC container as follows:
public interface ISomethingService {
Task DoSomethingAsync(int id);
}
public class SomethingServicFactory : ServiceFactory<ISomethingService > { }
public class ServiceFactory<T>
{
public static Func<T> CreateClosure;
public T GetDefault() => CreateClosure();
}
After creating and configuring the IoC container:
SomethingServicFactory .CreateClosure = () =>
Container.GetInstance<ISomethingService >();
Later in my application when I need a SomethingService:
var somethingService= new SomethingService().GetDefault();
This allows me to defer creation until the last moment yet still control the service creation using the container. I just started using SimpleInjector.
More importantly it allows me to create an instance of the service and easily pass it parameters while giving control to the IoC.
A great example where this pattern helps me is in a WPF XAML instantiated user control that needs to populate data (i.e. lookup values from a database). In the code behind I am able to easily create a DbContext and get data from the database. However, I have come to use it throughout the application as well.
I am concerned that I am missing a significant design/architecture problem by using this pattern and I am looking for comments on this pattern by IoC experts.

Your design exposes the following code smells and anti-patterns:
Temporal Coupling: Your CreateClosure property forces you to initialize your service factory after its creation. When you forget this, the application will fail at runtime. Temporal Coupling is a code smell.
Ambient Context: The CreateClosure acts as an Ambient Context (which is much like the Singleton design pattern, but with the ability to change the value using a static method or property). This causes a class's dependencies to be hidden, instead of 'statically declared' using the class's constructor. In Dependency Injection in .NET 2nd edition, we consider Ambient Context an anti-pattern (see chapter 5).
Dependency Inversion Principle violation: Your factories are concrete classes, while the DIP promotes talking to interfaces. As a result, your code becomes strongly coupled and hard to test.
Abstract Factories are a code smell: When applying Dependency Injection, the usefulness of factories evaporates. Especially the idea of having a factory for every abstraction in your application is an absolute no-no.
Instead, with Dependency Injection, everything becomes much easier: When we apply Constructor Injection, we can simply inject ISomethingService into its consumers. This:
Makes it clear what dependencies a class has, by looking at the constructor
Allows the DI container to compose the object graph for you and do analysis and diagnostics on the graph
Allows the container to manage lifetime of objects
Removes the need for having factories (since the container will take that role)
Reduces the number of dependencies a class has. Instead of needing 2 (one for the factory and one for the service), you only need one (for the service).

Pass parameter from a ViewModel to another with IoC

I'm trying to instantiate a SecondViewModel from a MainViewModel injecting in this second one paramaters that are services registered in the IoCContainer and objects from the MainVM.
The code is something of this kind:
class MainViewModel
{
public MainViewModel()
{
}
private string message = "the message";
public string Message { get; set; }
}
class SecondViewModel
{
public SecondViewModel(IService service, string message)
{
}
}
now, i know i can make the IoC Container inject a SecondViewModelFactory (that carries the service instance) into the MainViewModel, so it can create the SVM through it, but what if the implementation of IService is very heavy and i don't want to instantiate it but when i really need it.
And what if i have to instantiate other ViewModels in a similar way? Do I have to create tons of VMFactories and constructor's parameters?
And in case I use a generic ViewModelFactory, it would need to be instantiated passing all the services needed by every ViewModel I have, regardless if they will be created or not.
Do you know any better solution to my case?

In general, the creation of services should not be heavy. Their constructor should do nothing more than storing the incoming dependencies. If it uses some heavy resources in the background, they shouldn't be accessed through the constructor. This keeps the constructor simple (prevents you from having to test it) and allows the object graph to be composed very rapidly.
If there is really no way around this, there are basically two patterns you can apply:
1. Factories
You can inject a factory to delay the creation of a type. Factories are also useful when objects are created that should be controlled explicitly (for instance, instances that should be disposed as soon as possible). There are several ways of creating factories. Some people like to inject Func<T> or Lazy<T> dependencies into their services, but I find this too implicit. I rather inject an ISomeServiceFactory, since I find this more readable. Downside is that you need to define a new interface for this. However, if you find yourself having many factory interfaces, you probably have a problem in your design anyway.
2. Proxies
Instead of creating a factory, you can hide the service behind a proxy. This proxy can implement the same interface as the service and will do the delayed execution for you. This prevents you from letting the application take a dependency on a different interface (an IServiceFactory or Lazy<T> for instance). Especially Lazy<T> leaks details about the creation into the consumer of such a dependency. You can still inject a Lazy<T> into this proxy, if that's convenient. That's not a problem. That proxy would typically be part of your composition root and the rest of your application would still be dependend on your IService and not your Lazy<IService>.
Please be aware that the use of factories, proxies and lazy initiation does complicate the wiring of the container. So don't use if unless you measured that you really need it. They complicate things, because of the indirection, which makes it harder to follow interlectually. And they make it harder to verify your configuration using automated tests. For more information about verifying your container, take a look here and here.

Most IoC Containers supports Lazy dependency to with Lazy<> to avoid creating expensive class immediately.
So in your code, you can make lazy for your expensive IService:
class SecondViewModel
{
public SecondViewModel(Lazy<IService> service, string message)
{
}
}
You can use some popular IoC Containers and see how they support lazy loading: Autofac or NInject

Making dependency injection optional by introducting a factory?

So I have a piece of software containing a brunch of service classes. Those services take some dependencies though their respective constructors.
I have designed with dependency injection in mind, but developers who are going to build on top of the software, may not want to use DI. Therefore I have not implemented an IOC container, so it is up to the developer to introduce one if desired.
My problem is that the software comes with an administration website, which uses these services.
I don't want to hardcode the service dependencies in the site, because I want to make it possible for the developers to switch them if they want to.
So how should I go about this?
I was thinking about introducing a factory for services, and give it a fixed static location somewhere. Then use it on the site.
public class ServiceFactory : IServiceFactory
{
public static IServiceFactory Current { get; set; }
static ServiceFactory()
{
Current = new ServiceFactory();
}
public TService Create<TService>()
{
// Creation logic here.
}
}
Developers will be able to control things by setting their own implementation of IServiceFactory to the static ServiceFactory.Current property.
Is this the way to go?

Two things I would like to note.
What you are proposing is not Dependency Injection, rather Service Location. They are not the same.
Ideally dependency injection is fully transparent to a developer. I.e. the true dependencies enter through the constructor and not via an indirection.

Have you looked into the CommonServiceLocator library? It is designed to provide an abstraction layer over an IOC container, however you could equally use it to abstract a service factory as you describe, that way your application would be able to resolve its dependencies without necessarily knowing whether they were coming from DI or a factory implementation...

Does Dependency Injection (DI) rely on Interfaces?

This may seem obvious to most people, but I'm just trying to confirm that Dependency Injection (DI) relies on the use of Interfaces.
More specifically, in the case of a class which has a certain Interface as a parameter in its constructor or a certain Interface defined as a property (aka. Setter), the DI framework can hand over an instance of a concrete class to satisfy the needs of that Interface in that class. (Apologies if this description is not clear. I'm having trouble describing this properly because the terminology/concepts are still somewhat new to me.)
The reason I ask is that I currently have a class that has a dependency of sorts. Not so much an object dependency, but a URL. The class looks like this [C#]:
using System.Web.Services.Protocols;
public partial class SomeLibraryService : SoapHttpClientProtocol
{
public SomeLibraryService()
{
this.Url = "http://MyDomainName.com:8080/library-service/jse";
}
}
The SoapHttpClientProtocol class has a Public property called Url (which is a plain old "string") and the constructor here initializes it to a hard-coded value.
Could I possibly use a DI framework to inject a different value at construction? I'm thinking not since this.Url isn't any sort of Interface; it's a String.
[Incidentally, the code above was "auto-generated by wsdl", according to the comments in the code I'm working with. So I don't particularly want to change this code, although I don't see myself re-generating it either. So maybe changing this code is fine.]
I could see myself making an alternate constructor that takes a string as a parameter and initializes this.Url that way, but I'm not sure that's the correct approach regarding keeping loosely coupled separation of concerns. (SoC)
Any advice for this situation?

DI really just means a class wont construct it's external dependencies and will not manage the lifetime of those dependencies. Dependencies can be injected either via constructor, or via method parameter. Interfaces or abstract types are common to clarify the contract the consumer expects from its dependency, however simple types can be injected as well in some cases.
For example, a class in a library might call HttpContext.Current internally, which makes arbitrary assumptions about the application the code will be hosted in. An DI version of the library method would expect a HttpContext instance to be injected via parameter, etc.

It's not required to use interfaces -- you could use concrete types or abstract base classes. But many of the advantages of DI (such as being able to change an implementation of a dependancy) come when using interfaces.
Castle Windsor (the DI framework I know best), allows you to map objects in the IoC container to Interfaces, or to just names, which would work in your case.

Dependency Injection is a way of organizing your code. Maybe some of your confusion comes from the fact that there is not one official way to do it. It can be achieved using "regular" c# code , or by using a framework like Castle Windsor. Sometimes (often?) this involves using interfaces. No matter how it is achieved, the big picture goal of DI is usually to make your code easier to test and easier to modify later on.
If you were to inject the URL in your example via a constructor, that could be considered "manual" DI. The Wikipedia article on DI has more examples of manual vs framework DI.

I would like to answer with a focus on using interfaces in .NET applications. Polymorphism in .NET can be achieved through virtual or abstract methods, or interfaces.
In all cases, there is a method signature with no implementation at all or an implementation that can be overridden.
The 'contract' of a function (or even a property) is defined but how the method is implemented, the logical guts of the method can be different at runtime, determined by which subclass is instantiated and passed-in to the method or constructor, or set on a property (the act of 'injection').
The official .NET type design guidelines advocate using abstract base classes over interfaces since they have better options for evolving them after shipping, can include convenience overloads and are better able to self-document and communicate correct usage to implementers.
However, care must be taken not to add any logic. The temptation to do so has burned people in the past so many people use interfaces - many other people use interfaces simply because that's what the programmers sitting around them do.
It's also interesting to point out that while DI itself is rarely over-used, using a framework to perform the injection is quite often over-used to the detriment of increased complexity, a chain-reaction can take place where more and more types are needed in the container even though they are never 'switched'.
IoC frameworks should be used sparingly, usually only when you need to swap out objects at runtime, according to the environment or configuration. This usually means switching major component "seams" in the application such as the repository objects used to abstract your data layer.
For me, the real power of an IoC framework is to switch implementation in places where you have no control over creation. For example, in ASP.NET MVC, the creation of the controller class is performed by the ASP.NET framework, so injecting anything is impossible. The ASP.NET framework has some hooks that IoC frameworks can use to 'get in-between' the creation process and perform their magic.
Luke

Dependency Inject (DI) "friendly" library

I'm pondering the design of a C# library, that will have several different high level functions. Of course, those high-level functions will be implemented using the SOLID class design principles as much as possible. As such, there will probably be classes intended for consumers to use directly on a regular basis, and "support classes" that are dependencies of those more common "end user" classes.
The question is, what is the best way to design the library so it is:
DI Agnostic - Although adding basic "support" for one or two of the common DI libraries (StructureMap, Ninject, etc) seems reasonable, I want consumers to be able to use the library with any DI framework.
Non-DI usable - If a consumer of the library is using no DI, the library should still be as easy to use as possible, reducing the amount of work a user has to do to create all these "unimportant" dependencies just to get to the "real" classes they want to use.
My current thinking is to provide a few "DI registration modules" for the common DI libraries (e.g a StructureMap registry, a Ninject module), and a set or Factory classes that are non-DI and contain the coupling to those few factories.
Thoughts?

This is actually simple to do once you understand that DI is about patterns and principles, not technology.
To design the API in a DI Container-agnostic way, follow these general principles:
Program to an interface, not an implementation
This principle is actually a quote (from memory though) from Design Patterns, but it should always be your real goal. DI is just a means to achieve that end.
Apply the Hollywood Principle
The Hollywood Principle in DI terms says: Don't call the DI Container, it'll call you.
Never directly ask for a dependency by calling a container from within your code. Ask for it implicitly by using Constructor Injection.
Use Constructor Injection
When you need a dependency, ask for it statically through the constructor:
public class Service : IService
{
private readonly ISomeDependency dep;
public Service(ISomeDependency dep)
{
if (dep == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("dep");
}
this.dep = dep;
}
public ISomeDependency Dependency
{
get { return this.dep; }
}
}
Notice how the Service class guarantees its invariants. Once an instance is created, the dependency is guaranteed to be available because of the combination of the Guard Clause and the readonly keyword.
Use Abstract Factory if you need a short-lived object
Dependencies injected with Constructor Injection tend to be long-lived, but sometimes you need a short-lived object, or to construct the dependency based on a value known only at run-time.
See this for more information.
Compose only at the Last Responsible Moment
Keep objects decoupled until the very end. Normally, you can wait and wire everything up in the application's entry point. This is called the Composition Root.
More details here:
Where should I do Injection with Ninject 2+ (and how do I arrange my Modules?)
Design - Where should objects be registered when using Windsor
Simplify using a Facade
If you feel that the resulting API becomes too complex for novice users, you can always provide a few Facade classes that encapsulate common dependency combinations.
To provide a flexible Facade with a high degree of discoverability, you could consider providing Fluent Builders. Something like this:
public class MyFacade
{
private IMyDependency dep;
public MyFacade()
{
this.dep = new DefaultDependency();
}
public MyFacade WithDependency(IMyDependency dependency)
{
this.dep = dependency;
return this;
}
public Foo CreateFoo()
{
return new Foo(this.dep);
}
}
This would allow a user to create a default Foo by writing
var foo = new MyFacade().CreateFoo();
It would, however, be very discoverable that it's possible to supply a custom dependency, and you could write
var foo = new MyFacade().WithDependency(new CustomDependency()).CreateFoo();
If you imagine that the MyFacade class encapsulates a lot of different dependencies, I hope it's clear how it would provide proper defaults while still making extensibility discoverable.
FWIW, long after writing this answer, I expanded upon the concepts herein and wrote a longer blog post about DI-Friendly Libraries, and a companion post about DI-Friendly Frameworks.

The term "dependency injection" doesn't specifically have anything to do with an IoC container at all, even though you tend to see them mentioned together. It simply means that instead of writing your code like this:
public class Service
{
public Service()
{
}
public void DoSomething()
{
SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection("some connection string");
WindowsIdentity identity = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent();
// Do something with connection and identity variables
}
}
You write it like this:
public class Service
{
public Service(IDbConnection connection, IIdentity identity)
{
this.Connection = connection;
this.Identity = identity;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
// Do something with Connection and Identity properties
}
protected IDbConnection Connection { get; private set; }
protected IIdentity Identity { get; private set; }
}
That is, you do two things when you write your code:
Rely on interfaces instead of classes whenever you think that the implementation might need to be changed;
Instead of creating instances of these interfaces inside a class, pass them as constructor arguments (alternatively, they could be assigned to public properties; the former is constructor injection, the latter is property injection).
None of this presupposes the existence of any DI library, and it doesn't really make the code any more difficult to write without one.
If you're looking for an example of this, look no further than the .NET Framework itself:
List<T> implements IList<T>. If you design your class to use IList<T> (or IEnumerable<T>), you can take advantage of concepts like lazy-loading, as Linq to SQL, Linq to Entities, and NHibernate all do behind the scenes, usually through property injection. Some framework classes actually accept an IList<T> as a constructor argument, such as BindingList<T>, which is used for several data binding features.
Linq to SQL and EF are built entirely around the IDbConnection and related interfaces, which can be passed in via the public constructors. You don't need to use them, though; the default constructors work just fine with a connection string sitting in a configuration file somewhere.
If you ever work on WinForms components you deal with "services", like INameCreationService or IExtenderProviderService. You don't even really know what what the concrete classes are. .NET actually has its own IoC container, IContainer, which gets used for this, and the Component class has a GetService method which is the actual service locator. Of course, nothing prevents you from using any or all of these interfaces without the IContainer or that particular locator. The services themselves are only loosely-coupled with the container.
Contracts in WCF are built entirely around interfaces. The actual concrete service class is usually referenced by name in a configuration file, which is essentially DI. Many people don't realize this but it is entirely possible to swap out this configuration system with another IoC container. Perhaps more interestingly, the service behaviors are all instances of IServiceBehavior which can be added later. Again, you could easily wire this into an IoC container and have it pick the relevant behaviors, but the feature is completely usable without one.
And so on and so forth. You'll find DI all over the place in .NET, it's just that normally it's done so seamlessly that you don't even think of it as DI.
If you want to design your DI-enabled library for maximum usability then the best suggestion is probably to supply your own default IoC implementation using a lightweight container. IContainer is a great choice for this because it's a part of the .NET Framework itself.

EDIT 2015: time has passed, I realize now that this whole thing was a huge mistake. IoC containers are terrible and DI is a very poor way to deal with side effects. Effectively, all of the answers here (and the question itself) are to be avoided. Simply be aware of side effects, separate them from pure code, and everything else either falls into place or is irrelevant and unnecessary complexity.
Original answer follows:
I had to face this same decision while developing SolrNet. I started with the goal of being DI-friendly and container-agnostic, but as I added more and more internal components, the internal factories quickly became unmanageable and the resulting library was inflexible.
I ended up writing my own very simple embedded IoC container while also providing a Windsor facility and a Ninject module. Integrating the library with other containers is just a matter of properly wiring the components, so I could easily integrate it with Autofac, Unity, StructureMap, whatever.
The downside of this is that I lost the ability to just new up the service. I also took a dependency on CommonServiceLocator which I could have avoided (I might refactor it out in the future) to make the embedded container easier to implement.
More details in this blog post.
MassTransit seems to rely on something similar. It has an IObjectBuilder interface which is really CommonServiceLocator's IServiceLocator with a couple more methods, then it implements this for each container, i.e. NinjectObjectBuilder and a regular module/facility, i.e. MassTransitModule. Then it relies on IObjectBuilder to instantiate what it needs. This is a valid approach of course, but personally I don't like it very much since it's actually passing around the container too much, using it as a service locator.
MonoRail implements its own container as well, which implements good old IServiceProvider. This container is used throughout this framework through an interface that exposes well-known services. To get the concrete container, it has a built-in service provider locator. The Windsor facility points this service provider locator to Windsor, making it the selected service provider.
Bottom line: there is no perfect solution. As with any design decision, this issue demands a balance between flexibility, maintainability and convenience.

What I would do is design my library in a DI container agnostic way to limit the dependency on the container as much as possible. This allows to swap out on DI container for another if need be.
Then expose the layer above the DI logic to the users of the library so that they can use whatever framework you chose through your interface. This way they can still use DI functionality that you exposed and they are free to use any other framework for their own purposes.
Allowing the users of the library to plug their own DI framework seems a bit wrong to me as it dramatically increases amount of maintenance. This also then becomes more of a plugin environment than straight DI.