We Keep Coding

What is the MVVM Prism conversion of SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance?

I'm fairly new to MVVM PPRISM, and I'm rewriting a project that uses MVVMLight SimpleIOC. I have the following lines of code in registering in MVVM Light and I have doubts whether this is the right way to convert it in MVVM Prims's DryIOC.
SimpleIoc.Default.Register< iClassA, ClassA >();
SimpleIoc.Default.Register< iClassB, ClassB >();
// The factory method is necessary to prevent the linker from removing the class A constructor
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<IClassC>(() => new ClassC(SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance<IClassA>(), SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance<IClassB>()));
My question is does containerRegistry.GetContainer().Resolve<IClassInterface>() the right way to convert from SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance< IClassInterface >()
containerRegistry.Register<iClassA, ClassA>();
containerRegistry.Register<iClassB, ClassB>();
containerRegistry.RegisterInstance<ClassC>(new ClassC((iClassA)containerRegistry.GetContainer().Resolve<iClassA>(), (iClassB)containerRegistry.GetContainer().Resolve<iClassB >()));

So you seem to have two questions in one here, so I'll try to answer each part:
Converting from SimpleIoc to IContainerRegistry
I have the following lines of code in registering in MVVM Light and I have doubts whether this is the right way to convert it in MVVM Prims's DryIOC.
Prism's IContainerRegistry is an abstraction layer around the container meant to keep the vast majority of registration consistent regardless of which DI Container you are using with Prism. This also makes it easier to add support for different containers since Prism has outlined the interface we expect a Container to be able to support.
For instance where you have:
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<iClassA, ClassA>();
This would in theory map to an equivalent:
containerRegistry.Register<iClassA, ClassA>();
Because you're dealing with an abstraction layer it really doesn't matter if the backing container was DryIoc, Unity, or even a custom implementation with SimpleIoc.
Now in the event that there is some container specific API you need to access you can always call the GetContainer() extension to access the underlying container (assuming you're using DryIoc or Unity).
Resolving Types:
So if your container has a method called Resolve that returns the type then yes you could go down to the container to call it but the better question is why would you?
My question is does containerRegistry.GetContainer().Resolve() the right way to convert from SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance()
In the event that you're trying to resolve something from IContainerRegistry because you need to some crazy initialization. I would suggest using one of DryIoc's built in API's where you might have:
containerRegistry.Register<IFoo, Foo>();
containerRegistry.GetContainer().Register<IBar>(Reuse.Singleton,
Made.Of(() => new BarImplementation("requiredString", Arg.Of<IFoo>()));
You'll notice here that I've purposely ignored your Rp1210 example:
// The factory method is necessary to prevent the linker from removing the class A constructor
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<IClassC>(() => new Rp1210(SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance<IClassA>(), SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance<IClassB>()));
There are two reasons I've ignored this...
The comment tells me why they've done this.. the linker. Either turn off linking, or update your linker config to preserve the ctor for your IClassA implementation.
The entire point of using an IoC container is that it will automatically understand that it needs to inject services that are registered.
You'll notice that I'm only referencing that Container specific API because it had a primitive value that I needed to inject.

Correct way to use DI when creating new objects in Collection

MVVM, using PRISM 6 and Unity.
Bootstrapper takes care of creating intial View, which is in turn AutoWired to the ViewModel (i.e. View Model is resolved and it's DI's are taken care of).
Now the View Model has a Collection of other View Models.
This Collection can be added to with User Input, say with a button push.
The View Models in the collection require access to a singleton that I have to manage the "Workspace" (paths for image folders etc). So I would also want the creation of those objects to have that "Workspace" singleton injected into it.
In the method that would create a new ViewModel, what's the correct way to utilize DI/IoC to create it?
The only way I see it (dangerous to say "only" I know, that's why I'm asking for help) is:
Inject the Unity Container into the View Model that contains the
collection, then Resolve the new View Models as the button is hit.
The new View Models would be setup with a dependency on the
interface for the "Workspace" object.
Create a new View Model when the button is hit and pass the
"Workspace" into the constructor (of course the Workspace would need to be DI'd into the parent View Model to be passed down).
I have read multiple places that getting into passing the Container down via DI so that one can use Resolve<> isn't "correct".
Is this where creating a generic Factory would help? This still forces me to pass the container down, now it's just in the form of a factory though...
public T factory<T>(IContainer _container)
{
return _container.Resolve<T>();
}

Often when I read about DI, it is treated as the be all and end all. I more often than not use IoC heavily even in my small and simple projects, however, it is just pattern and has a place like everything else.
The Microsoft Press book Adaptive Code via C# explains SOLID well, justifies its use, covers the various forms of DI and the cost/benefit of each technique. For me, it made a lot of sense of these issues, managing project growth, and dealing with external dependencies.
I would NOT pass the UnityContainer to anything outside of my bootstrapper, other than a system which abstracts and breaks apart the bootstrapping/modularity process. In addition to the points you have made about this, Unity is a third-party dependency to your application just like anything else, and I would be very selective of which (if any) I tie myself to.
For your example above, I would use a simple factory. You could abstract this as far as you like, but a good compromise would be relieving your primary ViewModel of the burden of having to create its own children.
When using DI, there is nothing wrong with instantiating things yourself where appropriate. The most appropriate place of course is a factory. I wouldn't create a generic factory, as you stated, this is basically just like passing around the IoC container. Define a typed factory instead:
public interface IWorkspaceItemViewModelFactory
{
WorkspaceItemViewModel CreateWorkspaceItem();
}
The implementation of this might look something like this:
public class WorkspaceItemViewModelFactory
{
private readonly IWorkspaceManager _workspaceManager;
public WorkspaceItemViewModelFactory(IWorkspaceManager workspaceManager)
{
_workspaceManager = workspaceManager;
}
public WorkspaceItemViewModel CreateWorkspaceItem()
{
return new WorkspaceItemViewModel(_workspaceManager);
}
}
This class is an information expert with the single responsibility of creating WorkspaceItemViewModel instances. It has the right the use the new keyword, and have knowledge of WorkspaceItemViewModel dependencies. You may wish to insulate the ViewModel with an interface, but the value might be very little in your use case. Ultimately, you are using IoC, DI, and Interface Segregation for a reason, and when they stop delivering value to your particular application their use becomes noise.
Your view model could make use of this something like:
public class ExampleViewModel : ViewModelBase
{
public ExampleViewModel(IWorkspaceItemViewModelFactory workspaceItemViewModelFactory)
{
AddItemCommand = new ActionCommand(() =>
{
var newItem = workspaceItemViewModelFactory.CreateWorkspaceItem();
WorkspaceItems.Add(newItem);
});
}
public ICommand AddItemCommand { get; }
public ObservableCollection<WorkspaceItemViewModel> WorkspaceItems { get; } = new ObservableCollection<WorkspaceItemViewModel>();
}

Simple Injector - register collection

I use Simple Injector to create IoC container. I took pattern here:
Page Navigation using MVVM in Store App
As I asked in comment to above post, I would like to register collection of INavigationPage. I did it like that:
private static void RegisterNavigationPages()
{
Container.RegisterCollection<INavigationPage>(new []
{
typeof(MainNavigationPage),
typeof(SecondNavigationPage)
});
}
Inside the container I have ViewModels and NavigationService to:
Container.Register<INavigationService, NavigationService>(Lifestyle.Singleton);
Container.Register<IMainViewModel, MainViewModel>(Lifestyle.Singleton);
Container.Register<ISecondViewModel, SecondViewModel>(Lifestyle.Singleton);
This is way how I set DataContext of page:
DataContext = App.Container.GetInstance<IMainViewModel>();
Everything is OK but I want to use NavigationPages from that collection inside my ViewModel constructor. I can do it by index:
public SecondViewModel(INavigationService navigationService, IEnumerable<INavigationPage> navigationPageCollection)
{
NavigationService = navigationService;
_navigationPage = (navigationPageCollection.ToList())[0];
GoToMainPageCommand = new Command(GoToMainPageAction);
}
but it isn't elegant solution because when I change order of NavigationPages I will have to change all indexes in whole application. Is it any solution when I will can recognize which NavigationPage I want to use in ViewModel constructor?
I can't do it by typeof, because that NavigationPage types are in UIProject and I can't have reference there from ViewModel project because of circular reference dependency.

Currently the correctness of the SecondViewModel is completely dependent on the order and filling of the navigationPageCollection, which makes it really fragile. If your SecondViewModel needs a MainNavigationPage, that's what you should inject. Don't inject a collection; inject the page itself. That probably means that MainNavigationPage needs its own interface, such as IMainNavigationPage. That removes any ambiguity that you are having right now. But instead of having loads of one-to-one mapping non-generic interface (a violation of the RAP principle), you might be better of defining a few generic abstractions.

I have a similar problem and have solved this issue before. Read my blog here clean factory pattern
Basically what you need is to add a method or property to identify the user in the INavigationPage, and then also add the same identifier in the SecondViewModel. The SecondViewModel constructor just need to iterate through the IEnumerable and find the page that it needs.

Simple Injector inject multiple dependency in BaseClass

I have a BaseViewModel which is inherited by multiple ViewModel classes. In my BaseViewModel I have a couple of dependencies which get injected from ViewModel. Now if I need to add a new dependency in my BaseViewModel I need to change all the VM which inherit BaseViewModel. Please let me know how can it be handled in Simple Injector. Following is my code structure:
How can I make my base class injection independent so that I don't need to make changes in all my inherited class?
Code:
public class BaseViewModel
{
protected readonly IAESEnDecrypt AESEnDecrypt;
protected readonly IDataService DataService;
protected readonly INavigationService NavigateToPage;
public BaseViewModel(INavigationService nav, IDataService data, IAESEnDecrypt encrypt)
{
AESEnDecrypt= encrypt;
NavigateToPage = nav;
DataService = data;
}
}
public class ViewModel
{
public ViewModel(INavigationService nav, IDataService data, IAESEnDecrypt encrypt) : base (nav, data, encrypt)
{
}
}
My BaseViewModel Contains some of the following Interfaces whose implementation is injected through constructor:
- NavigationService
- DataService
- GeoLocationService
- SmartDispatcher
- MessageBus which implement Message Aggregator
It also Contains some common properties as static variables whose data is used throughout the application like UserDetails. And also contains CancellationToken, IsBusy to display progressbar.
BaseViewModel also contain HandleException method which handle all the incoming exceptions from all ViewModel.
Also Contains some common Commands which are used in all the Views like Si
gnoutCommand, NavigationBar Commands.
Actually it has started to contain all kinds of common methods used among various ViewModel.
Please suggest how can i refactor this code?

Your last sentence:
Actually it has started to contain all kinds of common methods used among various ViewModel
Precisely describes your problem! As Steven already described, that you're building almost the complete application through a single base class. Thereby infringing the Open-Closed principle which you are heavinly experiencing now.
The trick is design your application around very small SOLID ViewModels of which you compose the application at runtime. By splitting the ViewModels and using a UserControl as your views you can compose big complicated views for the user, while you still get all the benefits from using a SOLID design. So let’s take a look at some of your different interfaces that you implement and some of the functions you ‘handle’ in the base class:
NavigationService
This sounds like a service which controls the flow in your application. This sounds to me like your mainview(model). You could create a single MainViewModel which as a single property, let’s say CurrentView.Assuming you’re using WPF you typically would bind this property to a ContentControl. The content of this control can be everything from a single TextBlock to a complete UserControl. The UserControls can still be very complicated as they could be composed of multiple child usercontrol and so on. Using a MVVM framework (like e.g. Caliburn Micro or MVVM Light) for this is optionally but will come in handy.
It could also be an application global service with some of kind of callback or delegate function to perform navigation to a certain View(Model). It is in any case an infrastructural part of your application that deserves it own class and shouldn't be put away in a base class.
DataService
A single dataservice was the way I worked for over 10 years. Every time I hit my head against the wall. There comes a point in time that you need something special which is not included in your dataservice and you will probably go through your complete code base to make the right adjustments. Speaking of the Open-Closed principle…
Than I learned about the Command/Handler and Query/Handler pattern. You can read about this here and here. Using this pattern everywhere you need data you just inject the correct IQueryHandler<,> and use it right there. Not every view(model) needs data and certainly not the same data. So why use a global DataService? This is will also improve your Lifetime management of your DBContext object.
HandleException
Why is your base class responsible for handling the exceptions of your viewmodel? What does the base class know about this exceptions? What does the base class do? Log the exception, show a message to the user (what kind of message?) and silently continue? Letting the application break down 3 minutes later and leaving a user ignorant of what happened?
I.M.O. exception should not be catched if you didn’t expect them to be thrown in the first place. Than log the exception at an application level (e.g. in your Main), show an ‘Excuse me’ message to the user and close the application. If you expect an exception, handle it right there and then and handle according.
UserDetails
Ask yourself the question how many of your 40 ViewModels actually need this information? If all 40 are in need of this information, there is something else wrong with your design. If not, only inject this details (or even better an IUserContext) in the ViewModels that actually use them.
If you use it for some kind of authentication consider using a decorator wrapping the task they need permission for performing it.
IsBusyIndicator
Again: do you need this in every ViewModel? I think not. I think furthermore, showing the user a busy indicator is a responsibility of the View, not the ViewModel and the as the length of the task determines if you need to show this, make it a responsibility of the task (assuming you’re looking at your tasks also in a SOLID manner by using e.g. the already mentioned Command/Handler pattern).
With WPF you could define a Dependency Property that you can bind to the view, thereby showing some kind of busy indicator. Now just inject a ShowBusyIndicatorService in the task that needs to show it. Or wrap all your (lengthy) tasks in a ShowBusyIndicatorDecorator.
Design
Now let’s look at some simple interfaces you could define to build up your View(Model)s. Let’s say we decide to make every ViewModel responsible for a single task and we define the following (typical LoB) tasks:
Show (any kind of) data
Select or choose data
Edit data
A single task can be stripped down to ‘Show data of single datatype (entity)’. Now we can define the following interfaces:
IView<TEntity>
ISelect<TEntity>
IEdit<TEntity>
For each interface type you would create a Processor/Service or DialogHandler depending on your semantic preferences which would do the typical MVVM stuff like finding a corresponding view and binding this to viewmodel and show this in some way (a modal window, inject it as usercontrol in some contentcontrol etc.).
By injecting this single Processor/Service or DialogHandler in the your ‘Parent’ ViewModel where you need to navigate or show a different view you can show any type of entity by a single line of code and transfer the responsibility to the next ViewModel.
I’m using these 3 interfaces now in a project and I really can do everything I could do in the past, but now in SOLID fashion. My EditProcessor, interface and viewmodel look like this, stripped down from all not so interesting stuff. I’m using Caliburn Micro for the ViewModel-View Binding.
public class EditEntityProcessor : IEditEntityProcessor
{
private readonly Container container;
private readonly IWindowManager windowManager;
public EditEntityProcessor(Container container, IWindowManager windowManager)
{
this.container = container;
this.windowManager = windowManager;
}
public void EditEntity<TEntity>(TEntity entity) where TEntity : class
{
// Compose type
var editEntityViewModelType =
typeof(IEntityEditorViewModel<>).MakeGenericType(entity.GetType());
// Ask S.I. for the corresponding ViewModel,
// which is responsible for editing this type of entity
var editEntityViewModel = (IEntityEditorViewModel<TEntity>)
this.container.GetInstance(editEntityViewModelType);
// give the viewmodel the entity to be edited
editEntityViewModel.EditThisEntity(entity);
// Let caliburn find the view and show it to the user
this.windowManager.ShowDialog(editEntityViewModel);
}
}
public interface IEntityEditorViewModel<TEntity> where TEntity : class
{
void EditThisEntity(TEntity entity);
}
public class EditUserViewModel : IEntityEditorViewModel<User>
{
public EditUserViewModel(
ICommandHandler<SaveUserCommand> saveUserCommandHandler,
IQueryHandler<GetUserByIdQuery, User> loadUserQueryHandler)
{
this.saveUserCommandHandler = saveUserCommandHandler;
this.loadUserQueryHandler = loadUserQueryHandler;
}
public void EditThisEntity(User entity)
{
// load a fresh copy from the database
this.User = this.loadUserQueryHandler.Handle(new GetUserByIdQuery(entity.Id));
}
// Bind a button to this method
public void EndEdit()
{
// Save the edited user to the database
this.saveUserCommandHandler.Handle(new SaveUserCommand(this.User));
}
//Bind different controls (TextBoxes or something) to the properties of the user
public User User { get; set; }
}
From you IView<User> you can now edit the current selected User with this line of code:
// Assuming this property is present in IView<User>
public User CurrentSelectedUser { get; set; }
public void EditUser()
{
this.editService.EditEntity(this.CurrentSelectedUser);
}
Note that by using this design you can wrap your ViewModels in a decorator to do crosscutting concerns, like logging, authentication and so on.
So this was the long answer, the short one would be: loose the base class, it is biting you and it will bite you more and harder!

Prevent having this base class in the first place. This base class is a big code smell and the result is your current pain. Such a base class will violate the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) and will just act as a big helper class for all derived view models, or it even seems that you are putting cross-cutting concerns in there. The base class might even hide the fact that your view models violate the SRP. They probably do too much; have too many responsibilities.
Instead, try to do the following:
Move cross-cutting concerns out of the base class into decorators or find another way to apply cross-cutting concerns.
Group related dependencies together into a aggregate service and inject such aggregate service into your view model.
In a well designed application, there is hardly ever a need for having such base class that takes dependencies.
If you aren't able to change your design (but please do take a look it this; you will be in a much better place without that base class), you can revert to explicit property injection. Simple Injector does not do this out-of-the-box, but the documentation describes how to do this.
Basically, it comes down to writing a custom IPropertySelectionBehavior, moving the constructor dependencies of the BaseViewModel to public properties and marking them with a custom attribute.
But again, only use property injection as a last resort. Property injection will only hide the design problem; it will not solve it.

You can use the ServiceLocator (anti)pattern to make the injection independent, HOWEVER you should not do this as it violates the principles of SOLID. Mark Seemann - Service Locator violates SOLID
You should rather stick to adding the dependencies in the constructor as this is in line with SOLID OO design principles.

firsts steps with an IoC because I hit a wall, please explain the 'behind the scenes'

So I started this new project, and I was trying to incorporate all the new design principles I was reading about, namely trying to make things loosely coupled, testable, and following some patterns.
So I then ran into the issue of having to pass too many factories/managers into my classes constructor, which led me into Dependancy injection.
public class SomeClass
{
public SomeClass(IDBFactory factory, IOrderManager orderManager, ....)
}
So if I use ninject, from what I understand, I would then bind a particular implementation to the class.
So what is going on behind the scenes?
NInject will, whenever I instantiate SomeClass, it will bind the implementation that I defined in the config file?
i.e.
I do:
ISomeClass sc = NInject.Get<ISomeClass>();
and ninject will do:
new SomeClassImpl(pass in all the implementaitons in the constructor)
correct?

I don't know NInject, but most DI Containers support Auto-Wiring, which works this way:
When you request ISomeClass, it looks through its list of all registered types. Using this list, it discovers that the desired implementation of ISomClass is SomeClass.
It will use SomeClass' constructor to create an instance (perhaps using Activator.CreateInstance), so it uses Reflection to figure out which paramters are required.
For each paramameter, it looks at the type and repeats step 1-2 for each.
Thus, the process may be recursive, but in the end, you should end up with a fully populated object graph where all dependencies are satisfied.