I have been having a play with prism and decided to convert an application to a modular prism application using Prism + WPf + Unity.
This application talks to various bits of hardware so the first thing was to put all my hardware classes into separate modules.
Taking my camera class as an example which talks to a camera system via Ethernet.
Lets say my camera class is like this (before PRISM conversion)
Public Class Camera
{
// bunch of properties
public Task<bool> TakePhoto()
{
return Task.Run(()=>
{
// ...
// Do taking photo stuff
// ...
return CameraPhotoTakenResult; // Return result of taking photo
});
}
}
Before PRISM conversion I call the TakePhoto method like so
var TakePhoto = MyCamera.TakePhoto();
// ...
// Do some stuff and call other methods
// ...
var result = await TakePhoto;
// Check the result and do something with it
// ...
// Continue doing other stuff
From my understanding, I now have to use the EventAggregator to trigger the camera, which is fine, but would this mean I would have to use another Event to send back the result? if so then how can I modify my code to await on this?
You can use the type as normal. Break out the public interface of the class into a common project which both your hardware module and consumer will reference. Your hardware module registers a class in some kind of Dependency Injection container (my example will use Unity):
public class HardwareModule : IModule
{
IUnityContainer _container;
public HardwareModule(IUnityContainer container)
{
_container = container;
}
public void Initialize()
{
_container.RegisterType<ICamera, Camera>();
}
}
Then in the consumer, you obtain an instance from the container and use the object in the normal way.
public class HardwareConsumer
{
IUnityContainer _container;
public HardwareConsumer(IUnityContainer container)
{
_container = container;
}
public async void TakePhoto()
{
ICamera camera = _container.Resolve<ICamera>();
var result = await camera.TakePhoto;
}
}
But since this is using dependency injection to inject the container, if you have no other need for the container, you can also/instead inject the instance into your class:
public class HardwareConsumer2
{
ICamera _camera;
public HardwareConsumer2(ICamera camera)
{
_camera = camera;
}
public async void TakePhoto()
{
var result = await _camera.TakePhoto;
}
}
Related
Hi am working on console application which uses Dependency Injection pattern, i have created the interface like
public interface IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService : IService<RecurringTransactionPlan>
{
IQueryable<RecurringTransactionPlan> RecurringTransactionPlanData();
}
and the class implements as
public class RecurringTransactionPlanDataService : Service<RecurringTransactionPlan>, IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService
{
private readonly IRepositoryAsync<RecurringTransactionPlan> _repository;
public RecurringTransactionPlanDataService(IRepositoryAsync<RecurringTransactionPlan> repository)
: base(repository)
{
_repository = repository;
}
public IQueryable<RecurringTransactionPlan> RecurringTransactionPlanData()
{
return _repository.RecurringTransactionPlanData();
}
}
The repository:
public static class RecurringTransactionPlanRepository
{
public static IQueryable<RecurringTransactionPlan> RecurringTransactionPlanData(this IRepository<RecurringTransactionPlan> repository)
{
return repository.Queryable();
}
}
the above code all in separate projects, i am using this in MVC and also in console application, while using in MVC there is no error fetching data from db by UnityConfig.cs, but in console application we need to manually register and resolve the interfaces, i have tried this,
My Console Application:
public class RecurringTransaction
{
public readonly IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService _recurringTransactionPlanDataService;
public RecurringTransaction()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService, RecurringTransactionPlanDataService>();
_recurringTransactionPlanDataService = container.Resolve<IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService>();
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
FeePaymentTracker.UnityConfig.RegisterComponents();
RecurringTransaction rt = new RecurringTransaction();
var restult = rt.GetRecurringTransactionRecords();
}
}
am getting the above error. expecting your ideas to resolve the error.
In your RecurringTransaction-method you create a new container and then you register RecurringTransactionPlanDataService in that new container. But you do not register the dependencies that the implementation RecurringTransactionPlanDataService has. That container will only have one registration.
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService, RecurringTransactionPlanDataService>();
_recurringTransactionPlanDataService = container.Resolve<IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService>();
Since RecurringTransactionPlanDataService has a dependency to IRepositoryAsync<RecurringTransactionPlan> you need to register that as well.
Change your code to:
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService, RecurringTransactionPlanDataService>();
container.RegisterType<IRepositoryAsync<RecurringTransactionPlan>, YourRepositoryImplementation>();
_recurringTransactionPlanDataService = container.Resolve<IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService>();
As a sidenote you may want to re-use the same container. In console-applications I usually resolve a "ProgramStarter", which then gets the correct injections. This way you only need to use the service locator anti-pattern in the root. But can use proper DI in the rest of the application.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<ProgramStarter, ProgramStarter>();
// Pass the same container to the config.
FeePaymentTracker.UnityConfig.RegisterComponents(container);
var program = container.Resolve<ProgramStarter>();
program.Run();
}
}
public class ProgramStarter
{
IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService _dataService;
public ProgramStarter(IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService dataService)
{
_dataService = dataService;
}
public void Run()
{
// Do stuff.
}
}
in the code that you have posted you have an interface called IPaymentService and its implementation. It seems ok. But then in the screenshot you are trying to resolve a dependency called RecurringTransactionPlanDataService. Make your that you have registered this dependency. Could you add information about how you are registering the dependencies in the container?
The problem in your code is that you are trying to resolve the implementation instead of the interface. You should change the following line:
_recurringTransactionPlanDataService = container.Resolve<RecurringTransactionPlanDataService>();
with that:
_recurringTransactionPlanDataService = container.Resolve<IRecurringTransactionPlanDataService>();
Cheers,
The problem is that the Azure WebJobs SDK supports only public static methods as job entry-points which means there is no way of implementing constructor/property injection.
I am unable to find anything about this topic in official WebJobs SDK documentation/resources. The only solution that I came across is based on service locator (anti) pattern described on this post here.
Is there a good way to use "proper" dependency injection for projects based on Azure WebJobs SDK?
Azure WebJobs SDK now supports instance methods. Combining this with a custom IJobActivator allows you to use DI.
First, create the custom IJobActivator that can resolve a job type using your favourite DI container:
public class MyActivator : IJobActivator
{
private readonly IUnityContainer _container;
public MyActivator(IUnityContainer container)
{
_container = container;
}
public T CreateInstance<T>()
{
return _container.Resolve<T>();
}
}
You need to register this class using a custom JobHostConfiguration:
var config = new JobHostConfiguration
{
JobActivator = new MyActivator(myContainer)
};
var host = new JobHost(config);
Then, you can use a simple class with instance methods for your jobs (here I'm using Unity's constructor injection feature):
public class MyFunctions
{
private readonly ISomeDependency _dependency;
public MyFunctions(ISomeDependency dependency)
{
_dependency = dependency;
}
public Task DoStuffAsync([QueueTrigger("queue")] string message)
{
Console.WriteLine("Injected dependency: {0}", _dependency);
return Task.FromResult(true);
}
}
This is how I handled scoping using the new SDK. Using the IJobactivator as described by Alexander Molenkamp.
public class ScopedMessagingProvider : MessagingProvider
{
private readonly ServiceBusConfiguration _config;
private readonly Container _container;
public ScopedMessagingProvider(ServiceBusConfiguration config, Container container)
: base(config)
{
_config = config;
_container = container;
}
public override MessageProcessor CreateMessageProcessor(string entityPath)
{
return new CustomMessageProcessor(_config.MessageOptions, _container);
}
private class CustomMessageProcessor : MessageProcessor
{
private readonly Container _container;
public CustomMessageProcessor(OnMessageOptions messageOptions, Container container)
: base(messageOptions)
{
_container = container;
}
public override Task<bool> BeginProcessingMessageAsync(BrokeredMessage message, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
_container.BeginExecutionContextScope();
return base.BeginProcessingMessageAsync(message, cancellationToken);
}
public override Task CompleteProcessingMessageAsync(BrokeredMessage message, FunctionResult result, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var scope = _container.GetCurrentExecutionContextScope();
if (scope != null)
{
scope.Dispose();
}
return base.CompleteProcessingMessageAsync(message, result, cancellationToken);
}
}
}
You can the use your custom MessagingProvider in your JobHostConfiguration like
var serviceBusConfig = new ServiceBusConfiguration
{
ConnectionString = config.ServiceBusConnectionString
};
serviceBusConfig.MessagingProvider = new ScopedMessagingProvider(serviceBusConfig, container);
jobHostConfig.UseServiceBus(serviceBusConfig);
After asking my own question about how to handle scoping ... I've just came up to this solution: I don't think this is ideal but I couldn't find any other solution for the moment.
In my example I am dealing with ServiceBusTrigger.
As I am using SimpleInjector, the implementation of the IJobActivator interface looks like that:
public class SimpleInjectorJobActivator : IJobActivator
{
private readonly Container _container;
public SimpleInjectorJobActivator(Container container)
{
_container = container;
}
public T CreateInstance<T>()
{
return (T)_container.GetInstance(typeof(T));
}
}
Here, I am dealing with Triggered webjobs.
So I have two dependencies:
A singleton:
public interface ISingletonDependency { }
public class SingletonDependency : ISingletonDependency { }
And another that need to live only the time my function is triggered:
public class ScopedDependency : IScopedDependency, IDisposable
{
public void Dispose()
{
//Dispose what need to be disposed...
}
}
So in order to have a process that run independently from the webjob. I've encapsulated my process into a class :
public interface IBrokeredMessageProcessor
{
Task ProcessAsync(BrokeredMessage incommingMessage, CancellationToken token);
}
public class BrokeredMessageProcessor : IBrokeredMessageProcessor
{
private readonly ISingletonDependency _singletonDependency;
private readonly IScopedDependency _scopedDependency;
public BrokeredMessageProcessor(ISingletonDependency singletonDependency, IScopedDependency scopedDependency)
{
_singletonDependency = singletonDependency;
_scopedDependency = scopedDependency;
}
public async Task ProcessAsync(BrokeredMessage incommingMessage, CancellationToken token)
{
...
}
}
So now when the webjob starts, I need to register my dependencies depending their scopes:
class Program
{
private static void Main()
{
var container = new Container();
container.Options.DefaultScopedLifestyle = new ExecutionContextScopeLifestyle();
container.RegisterSingleton<ISingletonDependency, SingletonDependency>();
container.Register<IScopedDependency, ScopedDependency>(Lifestyle.Scoped);
container.Register<IBrokeredMessageProcessor, BrokeredMessageProcessor>(Lifestyle.Scoped);
container.Verify();
var config = new JobHostConfiguration
{
JobActivator = new SimpleInjectorJobActivator(container)
};
var servicebusConfig = new ServiceBusConfiguration
{
ConnectionString = CloudConfigurationManager.GetSetting("MyServiceBusConnectionString")
};
config.UseServiceBus(servicebusConfig);
var host = new JobHost(config);
host.RunAndBlock();
}
}
And this is the triggered job:
Only have one dependency : the IoC container. Because this class is part of my composition root, it should be ok.
It handle the scope into the triggered function.
public class TriggeredJob
{
private readonly Container _container;
public TriggeredJob(Container container)
{
_container = container;
}
public async Task TriggeredFunction([ServiceBusTrigger("queueName")] BrokeredMessage message, CancellationToken token)
{
using (var scope = _container.BeginExecutionContextScope())
{
var processor = _container.GetInstance<IBrokeredMessageProcessor>();
await processor.ProcessAsync(message, token);
}
}
}
I've used a couple patterns that rely on the concept of child containers/scopes (depending on the terminology of your IoC container of choice). Not sure which ones support it, but I can tell you that StructureMap 2.6.x and AutoFac do.
The idea is to spin up a child scope for each message coming in, inject any context that's unique to that request, resolve the top-level object from the child scope, and then run your process.
Here's some generalized code showing it with AutoFac. It does do a direct resolve from the container, similar to the anti-pattern you're attempting to avoid, but it's been isolated to one place.
In this case, it's using a ServiceBusTrigger to fire the job, but could be anything - a job host could potentially have a list of these for the different queues/processes.
public static void ServiceBusRequestHandler([ServiceBusTrigger("queuename")] ServiceBusRequest request)
{
ProcessMessage(request);
}
This method is called by all instances of the above methods. It wraps creation of the child scope in a using block to make sure things are cleaned up. Then, any objects that would vary per request and contain context used by other dependencies (user/client information, etc) would be created and injected into the child container (in this example, the IRequestContext). Finally, the component doing the work would be resolved from the child container.
private static void ProcessMessage<T>(T request) where T : IServiceBusRequest
{
try
{
using (var childScope = _container.BeginLifetimeScope())
{
// create and inject things that hold the "context" of the message - user ids, etc
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.Register(c => new ServiceRequestContext(request.UserId)).As<IRequestContext>().InstancePerLifetimeScope();
builder.Update(childScope.ComponentRegistry);
// resolve the component doing the work from the child container explicitly, so all of its dependencies follow
var thing = childScope.Resolve<ThingThatDoesStuff>();
thing.Do(request);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
All answers to the question are outdated now. Using the latest packages you can easily get constructor injection right out of the box. Two steps are only required:
Create the event handler function as an instance method in a non-static class. Let's call the class QueueFunctions.
Add your class to the list of services.
builder.ConfigureServices(services =>
{
// Add
// dependencies
// here
services.AddScoped<QueueFunctions>();
});
Now, you'll be able to inject dependencies through the constructor.
Consider the class below:
using Microsoft.AspNet.SignalR;
public class TwitterStream
{
// Hub Context
IHubContext context = GlobalHost.ConnectionManager.GetHubContext<GeoFeedHub>();
public void ChangeStreamBounds(double latitude, double longitude)
{
Debug.WriteLine(latitude + "-" + longitude);
}
// Lots of other interesting code redacted
}
Is it possible to call the ChangeStreamBounds method from the client even though it is outside of the Hub class? It's possible to call client functions from the server (and from outside of the Hub class) but is it possible to do it the other way round?
Unfortunately I've backed myself into a bit of a corner and the code must be executed from the class that I've written (not from the Hub itself - unless of course you can run a SignalR Hub as a Task factory)
There may be an answer to your question that involves HubConnections and IHubProxys (which let you bind to hub method calls) or the lower-level API, but I think you may be going about this the wrong way.
Conceptually, you want the GeoFeedHub to handle client requests, and the TwitterStream class to handle interacting with the Twitter API. Thus, your GeoFeedHub class has a dependency on TwitterStream.
It's good that your TwitterStream class has async methods, and this is fully supported in SignalR. You can have async Hub methods that call into TwitterStream, which removes the need for your TaskFactory usage in Global.asax.
Instead of creating your TwitterStream at application start and trying to find a way to bind Hub calls to it (a backwards dependency and violation of the Single Responsibility Principle), it would be cleaner to let your Hub stand as the point of contact between your realtime clients, and inject an instance of TwitterStream into the GeoFeedHub so the Hub can access the Twitter API.
Here's some sample code that should illustrate this idea:
public class GeoFeedHub : Hub
{
// Declare dependency on TwitterStream class
private readonly TwitterStream _twitterStream;
// Use constructor injection to get an instance of TwitterStream
public GeoFeedHub(TwitterStream _twitterStream)
{
_twitterStream = _twitterStream;
}
// Clients can call this method, which uses the instance of TwitterStream
public async Task SetStreamBounds(double latitude, double longitude)
{
await _twitterStream.SetStreamBoundsAsync(latitude, longitude);
}
}
public class TwitterStream
{
public TwitterStream()
{
}
public async Task SetStreamBoundsAsync(double latitude, double longitude)
{
// Do something with Twitter here maybe?
await SomeComponent.SetStreamBoundsAsync(latitude, longitude);
}
// More awesome code here
}
I used DI in the example, so here's some of the glue code you'd need to hook that up. This code would go into your App_Start folder:
// Configure Unity as our DI container
public class UnityConfig
{
private static readonly Lazy<IUnityContainer> Container = new Lazy<IUnityContainer>(() =>
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
RegisterTypes(container);
return container;
});
public static IUnityContainer GetConfiguredContainer()
{
return Container.Value;
}
private static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
var twitterService = new TwitterService();
container.RegisterInstance(twitterService);
/*
* Using RegisterInstance effectively makes a Singleton instance of
* the object accessible throughout the application. If you don't need
* (or want) the class to be shared among all clients, then use
* container.RegisterType<TwitterService, TwitterService>();
* which will create a new instance for each client (i.e. each time a Hub
* is created, you'll get a brand new TwitterService object)
*/
}
}
// If you're using ASP.NET, this can be used to set the DependencyResolver for SignalR
// so it uses your configured container
[assembly: WebActivatorEx.PreApplicationStartMethod(typeof(UnitySignalRActivator), "Start")]
[assembly: WebActivatorEx.ApplicationShutdownMethod(typeof(UnitySignalRActivator), "Shutdown")]
public static class UnitySignalRActivator
{
public static void Start()
{
var container = UnityConfig.GetConfiguredContainer();
GlobalHost.DependencyResolver = new SignalRUnityDependencyResolver(container);
}
public static void Shutdown()
{
var container = UnityConfig.GetConfiguredContainer();
container.Dispose();
}
}
public class SignalRUnityDependencyResolver : DefaultDependencyResolver
{
private readonly IUnityContainer _container;
public SignalRUnityDependencyResolver(IUnityContainer container)
{
_container = container;
}
public override object GetService(Type serviceType)
{
return _container.IsRegistered(serviceType)
? _container.Resolve(serviceType)
: base.GetService(serviceType);
}
public override IEnumerable<object> GetServices(Type serviceType)
{
return _container.IsRegistered(serviceType)
? _container.ResolveAll(serviceType)
: base.GetServices(serviceType);
}
}
I have the following service classes:
public class JobService {
private UserService us;
public JobService (UserService us) {
this.us = us;
}
public void addJob(Job job) {
// needs to make a call to user service to update some user info
// similar dependency to the deleteUser method
}
}
public class UserService {
private JobService js;
public UserService(JobService js) {
this.js = js;
}
public void deleteUser(User u) {
using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()) {
List<IJob> jobs = jobService.findAllByUser(u.Id);
foreach (IJob job in jobs) {
js.deleteJob(job);
}
userDao.delete(user);
scope.Complete();
}
}
}
Each of these service classes is getting instantiated by IoC container, and there is not a functional problem, but this to me feels like there is a potential design flaw in this approach and I'm wondering if there's an alternative approach that makes more sense.
As someone already pointed out, the problem is not with limitations to the DI container but with your design.
I see the reason that you have a separate UserService and a JobService which contain a reference to each other. This is because both UserService and JobService contain some logic that needs the other service as a reference (adding a job requires adding a user, etc.). However, I think that you should NOT reference one service from the other. Rather, you should have another layer of abstraction behind the services which the services will use for the common logic. So, the services will contain the logic which can't(shouldn't) be reused and the helpers will contain the shared logic.
For example:
public class UserHelper{
//add all your common methods here
}
public class JobService {
private UserHelper us;
public JobService (UserHelper us) {
this.us = us;
}
public void addJob(Job job) {
// calls helper class
}
}
public class UserService {
public UserService(UserHelper js) {
this.js = js;
}
public void deleteUser(User u) {
// calls helper class
}
}
In this way, you won't have any issues with circular references and you will have one place which contains the logic which needs to be reused by different services.
Also, I prefer having services which are completely isolated from one another.
The problem you are having has in fact nothing to do with the limitations of your DI container, but it is a general problem. Even without any container, it will be impossible to create those types:
var job = new JobService([what goes here???]);
var user = new UserService(job);
The general answer is therefore to promote one of the dependencies to a property. This will break the dependency cycle:
var job = new JobService();
var user = new UserService(job);
// Use property injection
job.User = user;
Prevent however from using more properties than strictly needed. These dependency cycles should be pretty rare and makes it much harder to either wire your types together, or to validate the DI configuration for correctness. Constructor injection makes this much more easy.
You can decouple the services by using events. Instead of calling a dependent method of another service when an action has been performed, an event is raised. An integrator can then wire up the services through the events. A service does not even know the existence of the other service.
public class JobService
{
public event Action<User, Job> JobAdded;
public void AddJob(User user, Job job)
{
//TODO: Add job.
// Fire event
if (JobAdded != null) JobAdded(user, job);
}
internal void DeleteJobs(int userID)
{
//TODO: Delete jobs
}
}
public class UserService
{
public event Action<User> UserDeleted;
public void DeleteUser(User u)
{
//TODO: Delete User.
// Fire event
if (UserDeleted != null) UserDeleted(u);
}
public void UpdateUser(User user, Job job)
{
//TODO: Update user
}
}
The integrator wires up the services
public static class Services
{
public static JobService JobService { get; private set; }
public static UserService UserService { get; private set; }
static Services( )
{
JobService = new JobService();
UserService = new UserService();
JobService.JobAdded += JobService_JobAdded;
UserService.UserDeleted += UserService_UserDeleted;
}
private static void UserService_UserDeleted(User user)
{
JobService.DeleteJobs(user.ID);
}
private static void JobService_JobAdded(User user, Job job)
{
UserService.UpdateUser(user, job);
}
}
(Note: I simplified event raising a bit. It's not thread safe like this. But you can assume that the events are subscribed in advance and will not be changed later.)
This wont work in Autofac. See circular dependencies section of the documentation.
Constructor/Constructor Dependencies Two types with circular
constructor dependencies are not supported. You will get an exception
when you try to resolve types registered in this manner.
You could potentially use relationship types (Func<>, Lazy<>) to break the cycle.
Your code is a bit too generic to come up with a proper solution but you should consider changing the direction of dependencies regardless of what IoC container you use.
public class JobService {
private UserService us;
public JobService (UserService us) {
this.us = us;
}
public void addJob(Job job) {
// needs to make a call to user service to update some user info
}
}
public class UserService {
private JobService js;
public UserService(Func<JobService> jsFactory) {
this.js = jsFactory(this);
}
public void deleteUser(User u) {
// needs to call the job service to delete all the user's jobs
}
}
Alternatively, In the case of your example you could move deleteUser and create a method, delete all jobs on the job service and instead of refering to the user use an id. this breaks the dependency by using the id.
Another alternative is to pass the job service as a parameter to deleteUser.
Can anyone help?
I have a wpf app (shouldn't matter) and in the Onstart i have my bootstrap stuff.. Its like this..
// Create unity container my service and repository
container = new UnityContainer()
.RegisterType<ISecurityRepository, SecurityRepository>()
.RegisterType<ISecurityService, SecurityService>();
Basically ISecurityService expects me to pass in a ISecurityRepository, hence the above fails.
But i am little confused, do i have to create a new IsecurityRespository and then pass it in, this defeats the object doesn't it?
Is there anyway i say "pass into SecurityService the ISecurityRepository from the container", but it hasn't been built yet?
Any ideas?
You don't have to create instances first. It all just works. That's the magic of IoC Containers.
Example:
public interface ISecurityService { }
public interface ISecurityRepository { }
public class SecurityService : ISecurityService
{
public SecurityService(ISecurityRepository repository)
{
Console.WriteLine("SecurityService created");
Console.WriteLine("Repository is " + repository);
}
public override string ToString()
{
return "A SecurityService";
}
}
public class SecurityRepository : ISecurityRepository
{
public SecurityRepository()
{
Console.WriteLine("SecurityRepository created");
}
public override string ToString()
{
return "A SecurityRepository";
}
}
public class MyClassThatNeedsSecurity
{
public MyClassThatNeedsSecurity(ISecurityService security)
{
Console.WriteLine("My class has security: " + security);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
using (IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer())
{
container.RegisterType<ISecurityRepository, SecurityRepository>()
.RegisterType<ISecurityService, SecurityService>();
MyClassThatNeedsSecurity myClass =
container.Resolve<MyClassThatNeedsSecurity>();
}
}
}
This will print:
SecurityRepository created
SecurityService created
Repository is A SecurityRepository
My class has security: A SecurityService
You have a number of options, such as pre-creating your instances (as you showed in your follow-up post) or extending the lifetime of injected dependencies so that they're not recreated every time they're needed. But for the base case, this will work.
here is some more information. The constructor of my class is
public SecurityService(ISecurityRepository repository)
: base(repository)
{
}
After playing around a little bit, i managed to do the following but this causes me to create instances FIRST ... It seems to work.., but its an alternative.
// Create unity container my service and repository
ISecurityRepository securityRepository = new SecurityRepository();
ISecurityService securityService = new SecurityService(securityRepository);
container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterInstance<ISecurityRepository>(securityRepository);
container.RegisterInstance<ISecurityService>(securityService);