I'm building a MVC application with Autofac and EntityFramework. I have a large set of data repositories / business objects that use my logging interface (NLog). I have just started working with Autofac and would like to know the preferred way for property injection:
Pass ILogging as constructor property, for this I have to set each local property from the constructor and creates larger constructor footprints.
Register each object individually with Autofac (they do not share a generic interface)
Use an Autofac.Module to locate these objects and set the property with reflection
Create a generic interface ILoggerDependency and register this with Autofac, this way all objects are easely registred.
My preferred method (out of lazyness...) is to have a generic interface that I can register with Autofac.
I am not that familiar with Autofac, so I'll try to give you my best recommendation based on what I know.
If there is one thing a lot of people gets wrong with dependency injection, it has to be using it for automation. The goal of DI is not to remove magic from your code. If anything, it is quite the opposite.
Keeping that in mind, I would not even consider using reflection as it hides large amounts of fragile plumbing.
Next, interfaces in OOP are meant to express what an object can do. Being injected is definitely not an action an object can take, but rather something that is imposed on an object. Even though, it is a quick and dirty way to solve your issue, I would refrain from using it as it will denature the structure of your code.
I have trouble understanding what you mean by pass ILogging as constructor property. Basically, you mean to resolve the interface yourself in the constructor? This looks a lot like property injection which defeats the purpose of DI by adding a strong dependency on your container within your class. Basically, instead of depending on Log4Net, you end up depending on Autofac. To fix this, you would need to add a service locator and then you still end up with a similar problem. How do you inject your service locator?
This is why I would register each object individually. It lets your container do its job. It doesn't affect your code structure and abstractions. It doesn't uses reflection (magic). It doesn't force you to depend on your container within each class. Besides, it also gives you a centralized place to look for when adding or removing repositories from your code.
Related
Reading the Simple injector docs to get a handle on how it all works and I read the below paragraph. I understand what its explaining apart from the part in bold. What does it mean?
The technique for keeping this dependency to a minimum can be achieved by designing the types in your application around the constructor injection pattern: Define all dependencies of a class in the single public constructor of that type; do this for all service types that need to be resolved and resolve only the top most types in the application directly (i.e. let the container build up the complete graph of dependent objects for you)
Ignoring my lack of understanding regarding the sentence above I ploughed on but when trying to set up Simple injector for Web api came across this line of code container.RegisterWebApiControllers(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration); With this explanation
Because controllers are concrete classes, the container will be able to create them without any registration.
Does this mean if I have a bunch of classes that don't rely on an interface, I can create them using a single line of code? (if so how, should I).
What this means is a good practice of not relying on the DI-container in your code apart from some top-level where you have to do that to "kick-start" the application.
That will mean that all your classes will just have constructor dependencies in the form of interfaces and will not do Container.Resolve. This will only be called on the top level of you application.
In some frameworks you won't even have to do that yourself because it's a part of how framework operates. As far as I remember in .Net core e.g. you won't need to do a resolve, but it will happen inside framework when the controllers will be initiated.
Because controllers are concrete classes, the container will be able
to create them without any registration.
This means you won't have to register the controllers themselves in the container. Container will only resolve controller dependencies themselves, create controllers and pass all of the resolved dependencies in them.
P.S. Resolving only in the root of you application is nothing specific for the SimpleInjector. It is a good practice that can be applied to any container and SimpleInjector can be used even if you don't follow it, which probably no one these days would recommend.
do this for all service types that need to be resolved and resolve only the top most types in the application directly
What this means is that, once you solely use Constructor Injection as a way for a class to get a hold of its dependencies, you will end up building object graphs that are potentially many layers deep. Take this object graph for instance:
new HomeController(
new ProductService(
new SqlProductRepository(
new CommerceContext(connectionString)),
new AspNetUserContextAdapter(
httpContextAccessor)));
PRO TIP: Did you know that you can let Simple Injector visualize your object graphs for you inside the debugger? This is explained here.
Here you see that HomeController has one dependency (IProductService) that it gets through its constructor. ProductService itself has two dependencies (IProductRepository and IUserContext) that are as well supplied through its constructor. This can go many layers deep.
Having Constructor Injection as the sole means to supply dependencies to a class means that the class is not allows to request them itself by calling back into the Container. This is a well-established anti-pattern called Service Locator. Constructor Injection simplifies your classes and allows the Container to analyze the object graph for you and detect any anomalies.
and resolve only the top most types in the application directly
When the whole object graph is constructed using Constructor Injection, it means that you only have to ask for a HomeController, which is the top most type in the graph. Nothing depends on HomeController; HomeController depends on everything (implicitly). All application behavior is invoked through these top most types. In an MVC application these typically are controllers, HTTP handlers and modules.
Because controllers are concrete classes, the container will be able to create them without any registration.
This statement is a bit misleading. Yes, it is true that Simple Injector will be able to create a requested concrete type for you, even if that type isn't registered. As explained here in the documentation however, it is best to always register your root types in the container. This ensures that the container knows about those types and it allows analysis and verification on those types as well. Not registering those concrete root types will give you a false sense of security when you call container.Verify(). Verify is only able to verify on the registrations that it knows of. When an unregistered concrete type is referenced as a dependency, the container still knows about it, but that obviously doesn't hold for root types, since nothing depends on them.
WARNING: In Simple Injector v5, this behavior is likely going to change. By default, Simple Injector v5 will probably not allow concrete unregistered root types to be resolved. see
Managing Dependency Injection in C# with Autofac explains in a very concise way with downloadable source code
Dependency injection by hand
var di = new EmployeeObserver(employees, new Printer(Console.Out));
di.FindExperts();
with autofac:
ContainerBuilder autofac = new ContainerBuilder();
autofac.Register(o => new EmployeeObserver(o.Resolve<IList<Employee>>(), o.Resolve<IPrinter>()));
autofac.RegisterType<Printer>().As<IPrinter>();
autofac.RegisterInstance(employees).As<IList<Employee>>();
autofac.RegisterInstance(Console.Out).As<TextWriter>();
using (var container = autofac.Build())
{
container.Resolve<EmployeeObserver>().FindExperts();
}
In some other Q&As, it says we can see the advantage usage of autofac while writing unit test.
Apart from that, could someone give reasons or details more why should I use more complicate code with autofac instead of by manual dependency injection?
It says:
May be on this particular example it's hard to see why this approach
is better than configuring dependency injection by hand, but you
should notice one important thing - with Autofac each component is
configured independently of all the others, and this is what will make
a big difference when your application become more complex.
Can you point an example of complex version of this case, that shows advantage of autofac usage vs dependency by hand that I will stuck with?
Using or not using a DI container has no effect on unit testing. When you unit test, you don't use a DI container because unit tests usually deal with a single or a few classes that you can wire together easily.
Please note that whether to use or not use a DI container to compose your objects is still a highly opinionated question. Here I provide a perspective that I have based on my experience using dependency injection in my projects.
In an article of mine, Why DI containers fail with “complex” object graphs, I define the concept of a simple object graph like this:
An object graph of any size and any depth that has the following two attributes:
a) For any interface (or abstraction) at most one class that implements such interface is used in the object graph.
b) For any class, at most one instance is used in the object graph (or multiple instances with the exact same construction parameter arguments). This single instance can be used multiple times in the graph.
When you have a simple object graph, use a DI container.
For an example of a simple object graph, consider that you have 20 service interfaces that is each implemented by a single class. E.g. IEmailService is only implemented by EmailService, and ISMSService is only implemented by SMSService, etc., and that you have 30 ASP.NET controllers each depending on any number of these service interfaces. Also some of the services depend on other service interfaces, e.g. OrderService depends on IEmailService.
When you don't have a simple object graph, i.e., you have a complex object graph (which is the case for most large applications that apply the SOLID principles), don't use a DI container and instead use Pure DI.
If you use a DI container with a complex object graph, you will end up using complex features of the container like named registrations to distinguish between different implementations of the same interface or between objects that take different construction parameters. This will make your composition root hard to maintain.
You might want to a look at this article of mine about how Pure DI can make your composition root clean.
In some other Q&As, it says we can see the advantage usage of autofac while writing unit test
You've missed the point.
The ability to mock dependency, and, hence, to write unit test, is the advantage of dependency injection as a pattern itself.
Advantage of any DI-container (not only Autofac) is ability to configure dependencies somehow and use this configuration in complex scenarios.
Imagine, that you have some class, that depends on some service, which, in turn depends on some other service, and so on.
It is hard to implement this using poor man's DI, but DI-containers can deal with this.
I'm moving from StructureMap 2.x to 3.x. One major change is that using ObjectFactory results in the following warning:
'StructureMap.ObjectFactory' is obsolete: 'ObjectFactory
will be removed in a future 4.0 release of StructureMap. Favor the
usage of the Container class for future
work'
So in most cases, the resolution is fairly easy: pass through IContainer as a constructor. Unfortunately this is not feasible for ASMX web serivces or attributes, both of which require a default constructor. That means I'm probably stuck with the Service Locator Pattern, property injection, or writing my own ObjectFactory implementation.
What's the preferred way to deal with this unfortunate problem?
Edit: It's worth mentioning that my container does an Assembly scan.
Per Jeremy Miller, himself:
Assembly scanning isn’t cheap and you (almost?) always wanna cache the
results. So, yeah, in that case you’re going to have to write your
own ObjectFactory. Someday all that bad old MS tech will go away.
So in this case, this implementation is what should be done.
The cleanest way I have seen to deal with this is to use .NET routing to take control of the entry point, then make a custom PageHandlerFactory implementation that takes the DI container as a dependency.
The custom page handler factory will then property inject the page/service after it is instantiated but before any of its events are called.
This is almost exactly the same way that IControllerFactory works with DI in MVC. In MVC, the container is injected into a custom IControllerFactory implementation at application startup, which effectively makes it a part of the application's composition root. In the case of ASP.NET, the IRouteHandler would effectively be part of the composition root.
I was unable to find a link to the source where I originally saw that implementation. But this one is pretty close. The primary difference is that one tries to use constructor injection, but the downside is that it requires full trust to do. I believe if you stick with property injection, you can do it with partial trust.
When using IoC for dependency injection the most recommended use is constructor injection (as told by many articles), my question is :
Is it better to inject using the constructor parameters or passing the IoC container through the constructor to inject the classes needed, and what is more useful for unit testing ?
Although passing the container through the constructor is better than making the container accessible as a singleton for the complete application, it is still a form of Service Locator (anti-pattern), and is not recommended. This has clear disadvantages:
It makes your code much harder to follow.
It makes it much less obvious when the Single Responsibility Principle is violated (since the class hides which things it depends on).
It makes it much hard to test, since you need to pass a configured container and you need to look in the code to see what the test need.
When requesting instances from the container directly from within every class, you will disable many features that IOC containers give you, because you don't allow the container to build up the object graph. Depending on the framework of choice, certain lifestyles and features like context based injection will not be usable.
All your tests use a container instance, making your tests come complex, and all your test have a dependency on the DI framework, which makes it very expensive to switch to another framework when needed.
Just inject the dependencies into the constructor, never* the container itself.
*Exception to this rule is when such class is located inside the appliation's Composition Root. In that case it's not considered to be the Simple Locator pattern, because that class is simply an infrastructure component.
Using constructor/property injection is better. When you pass the IOC container to the constructor you are no longer doing dependency injection and inversion of control. You are doing the Service Locator pattern. This means that classes no longer get their dependencies injected by the consumer, but they try are trying to fetch them. You are also probably tying your code to some particular DI framework.
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