We Keep Coding

Should I avoid using Dependency Injection and IoC?

In my mid-size project I used static classes for repositories, services etc. and it actually worked very well, even if the most of programmers will expect the opposite. My codebase was very compact, clean and easy to understand. Now I tried to rewrite everything and use IoC (Invertion of Control) and I was absolutely disappointed. I have to manually initialize dozen of dependencies in every class, controller etc., add more projects for interfaces and so on. I really don't see any benefits in my project and it seems that it causes more problems than solves. I found the following drawbacks in IoC/DI:
much bigger codesize
ravioli-code instead of spaghetti-code
slower performance, need to initialize all dependencies in constructor even if the method I want to call has only one dependency
harder to understand when no IDE is used
some errors are pushed to run-time
adding additional dependency (DI framework itself)
new staff have to learn DI first in order to work with it
a lot of boilerplate code, which is bad for creative people (for example copy instances from constructor to properties...)
We do not test the entire codebase, but only certain methods and use real database. So, should Dependency Injection be avoided when no mocking is required for testing?

The majority of your concerns seem to boil down to either misuse or misunderstanding.
much bigger codesize
This is usually a result of properly respecting both the Single Responsibility Principle and the Interface Segregation Principle. Is it drastically bigger? I suspect not as large as you claim. However, what it is doing is most likely boiling down classes to specific functionality, rather than having "catch-all" classes that do anything and everything. In most cases this is a sign of healthy separation of concerns, not an issue.
ravioli-code instead of spaghetti-code
Once again, this is most likely causing you to think in stacks instead of hard-to-see dependencies. I think this is a great benefit since it leads to proper abstraction and encapsulation.
slower performance Just use a fast container. My favorites are SimpleInjector and LightInject.
need to initialize all dependencies in constructor even
if the method I want to call has only one dependency
Once again, this is a sign that you are violating the Single Responsibility Principle. This is a good thing because it is forcing you to logically think through your architecture rather than adding willy-nilly.
harder to understand when no IDE is used some errors are pushed to run-time
If you are STILL not using an IDE, shame on you. There's no good argument for it with modern machines. In addition, some containers (SimpleInjector) will validate on first run if you so choose. You can easily detect this with a simple unit test.
adding additional dependency (DI framework itself)
You have to pick and choose your battles. If the cost of learning a new framework is less than the cost of maintaining spaghetti code (and I suspect it will be), then the cost is justified.
new staff have to learn DI first in order to work with it
If we shy away from new patterns, we never grow. I think of this as an opportunity to enrich and grow your team, not a way to hurt them. In addition, the tradeoff is learning the spaghetti code which might be far more difficult than picking up an industry-wide pattern.
a lot of boilerplate code which is bad for creative people (for example copy instances from constructor to properties...)
This is plain wrong. Mandatory dependencies should always be passed in via the constructor. Only optional dependencies should be set via properties, and that should only be done in very specific circumstances since oftentimes it is violating the Single Responsibility Principle.
We do not test the entire codebase, but only certain methods and use real database. So, should Dependency Injection be avoided when no mocking is required for testing?
I think this might be the biggest misconception of all. Dependency Injection isn't JUST for making testing easier. It is so you can glance at the signature of a class constructor and IMMEDIATELY know what is required to make that class tick. This is impossible with static classes since classes can call both up and down the stack whenever they like without rhyme or reason. Your goal should be to add consistency, clarity, and distinction to your code. This is the single biggest reason to use DI and it is why I highly recommend you revisit it.

Although IoC/DI is not some silver bullet that works in all cases, it is possible that you didn't apply it correctly. The set of principles behind Dependency Injection take time to master, or at least, it sure did for me. When applied right, it can bring (among others) the following benefits:
Improved testability
Improved flexibility
Improved maintainability
Improved parallel development
From your question, I can already extract some things that might have gone wrong in your case:
I have to manually initialize dozen of dependencies in every class
This implies that each class you create is responsible of creating the dependencies it requires. This is an anti-pattern known as Control Freak. A class should not new up its dependencies itself. You might even have applied the Service Locator anti-pattern where your class requests its dependencies by calling the container (or an abstraction that represents the container) to get a particular dependency. A class should just define the dependencies it requires as constructor arguments.
dozen of dependencies
This statement implies that you are violating the Single Responsibly Principle. This is actually not coupled to IoC/DI, your old code probably already violated the Single Responsibility Principle causing it to become hard to understand and maintain for other developers. It's often hard for the original author to understand why others have a hard time maintaining code, since the thing you wrote often fits nicely in your head. Often the violation of the SRP will cause others to have trouble understanding and maintaining code. And testing classes that violate SRP is often even harder. A class should have half a dozen dependencies at most.
add more projects for interfaces and so on
This implies that you are violating the Reused Abstraction Principle. In general, the majority of components/classes in your application should be covered by a dozen of abstractions. For instance, all classes that implement some use case probably deserve one single (generic) abstraction. Classes that implement queries also deserve one abstraction. For the systems that I write, 80% to 95% of my components (classes that contain the application's behavior) are covered by 5 to 12 (mostly generic) abstractions. Most of the time you don't need to create a new project solely for the interfaces.
Most of the time I place those interfaces in the root of the same project.
much bigger codesize
The amount of code you write will initially not be very different. The practice of Dependency Injection however, only works great when applying SOLID as well, and SOLID promotes small focussed classes. Classes with one single responsibility. This means that you will have many small classes that are easy to understand and easy to compose into flexible systems. And don't forget: we shouldn't strive to write less code, but rather more maintainable code.
However, with a good SOLID design and the right abstractions in place, I experienced actually having to write much less code than I had to before. For instance, applying certain cross-cutting concerns (like logging, audit trailing, authorization, etc) can be applied by just writing a few lines of code in the infrastructure layer of the application, instead of having it to be spread out throughout the complete application. It even lead me to be able to do things that werent feasible before, because they forced me to make sweeping changes throughout the entire code base, which was so time consuming that management didn't allow me to do so.
ravioli-code instead of spaghetti-code
harder to understand when no IDE is used
This is kind of true. Dependency Injection promotes classes to become decoupled from one another. This can sometimes make it harder to browse to a code base, since a class usually depends on an abstraction instead of a concrete classes. In the past I found the flexibily that DI gives me outweigh the cost of finding the implementation by far. With Visual Studio 2015 I can simply do CTRL + F12 to find the implementations of an interface. If there is just one implementation, Visual Studio will jump right to that implementation.
slower performance
This is not true. The performance doesn't have to be any different than working with a code base of only static method calls. You however chose to have your classes with a Transient lifestyle which means it you new up instances all over the place. In my last applications I created all my classes just once per application, which gives roughly the same performance as only having static method calls, but with the benefit of the application being very flexible and maintainable. But note that even if you decide to new complete graphs of objects for each (web) request, the performance cost will most likely be orders of magnitude lower than any I/O (database, file system and web services calls) that you perform during that request, even with the slowest DI containers.
some errors are pushed to run-time
adding additional dependency (DI framework itself)
These issues both imply the usage of a DI library. DI libraries do object composition at runtime. A DI library however is not a required tool when practicing Dependency Injection. Small applications can benefit from using Dependency Injection without a tool; a practice called Pure DI. Your application might not benefit from using a DI container, but most applications actually benefit from using Dependency Injection (when used correctly) as a practice. Againt: tools are optional, writing maintainable code isn't.
But even if you use a DI library, there are libraries that have tools built-in that allow you to verify and diagnose your configuration. They won't give you compile-time support, but they allow you to run this analysis either when the application starts up or using a unit test. This prevents you from doing a regression on the complete application just to verify whether your container is wired correctly. My advise is to pick a DI container that helps you in detecting these configuration errors.
new staff have to learn DI first in order to work with it
This is kind of true, but Dependency Injection itself isn't actually hard to learn. What is actually hard to learn is to apply the SOLID principles correctly, and you need to learn this anyway when you want to write applications that need to be maintained by more than one developer for a considerate period of time. I rather invest into teaching the developers on my team to write SOLID code instead of just letting them crank out code; that will surely cause a maintenance hell later on.
a lot of boilerplate code
There is some boilerplate code when we look at code written in C# 6, but this isn't actually that bad, especially when you consider the advantages it gives. And future versions of C# will remove the boilerplate that is mainly caused by having to define constructors that take in arguments that are null-checked and assigned to private variables. C# 7 or 8 will surely fix this when record types and non-nullable reference types are introduced.
which is bad for creative people
I'm sorry, but this argument is plain bullshit. I've seen this argument used over and over again as an excuse to write bad code by developers who didn't want to learn about design patterns and software principles and practices. Being creative is no excuse for writing code that no one else can understand or code that is impossible to test. We need to apply accepted patterns and practices and within that boundary there is enough room to be creative, while writing good code. Writing code is not an art; it’s a craft.
Like I said, DI is not appropriate in all cases, and the practices around it take time to master. I can advise you to read the book Dependency Injection in .NET by Mark Seemann; it will give many answers and will give you a good sense how and when to apply it, and when not.

Be warned: I hate IoC.
There are many great answers here which are comforting. The main benefits according to Steven (very strong answer) are:
Improved testability
Improved flexibility
Improved maintainability
Improved scalability
My experiences are very different through, here they are for some balance:
(Bonus) Stupid Repository Pattern
Too often, this is included along with IoC. The repository pattern should only be used to access external data, and where interchangeability is a core expectation.
When you use this, with Entity Framework, you disable all the power of Entity Framework, this also happens with Service Layers.
Eg. Calling:
var employees = peopleService.GetPeople(false, false, true, true); //Terrible
It should be:
var employees = db.People.ActiveOnly().ToViewModel();
In this case using extension methods.
Who needs flexibility?
If you have no plans to change service implementations, you don't need it. If you think you'll have more than one implementation in the future, perhaps add IoC then, and only for that part.
But "Testability"!
Entity Framework (and probably other ORMs too), allow you to change the connection-string to point to an in-memory database. Granted, that's only available starting EF7. However, it can simply be a new (proper) test database in a staging environment.
Do you have other special test resources and service points? In this day and age, they're probably different WebService URI endpoints, which can also be configured in App.Config / Web.Config.
Automated Tests make your code maintainable
TDD - If it's a Web Application, use Jasmine or Selenium and have automated behaviour tests. This tests everything all the way to the user. It's an investment over time, starting by covering critical features and functions.
DevOps/SysOps - Maintain scripts for provisioning your whole environment (this is also best practice), spin up a staging environment and run all the tests. You can also clone your production environment and run your tests there. Don't make "maintainable" and "testable" your excuse for choosing IoC. Start with those requirements and find the best ways to meet those requirements.
Scalability - in what way?
(I probably need to read the book)
For coder scalability, Distributed Code Version Control, is the norm (although I hate merging).
For human resource scalability, you shouldn't be wasting days designing extra abstract layers for your project.
For production concurrent user scalability, you should be building, testing, then improving.
For server throughput scalability, you need to think a lot higher-level than IoC. Are you going to run a server on the customer LAN? Can you replicate your data? Are you replicating at the database level or application level? Is offline access important while mobile? These are substantial architecture questions, where IoC is rarely the answer.
Try F12
If you're using an IDE (which you should be doing), such as Visual Studio Community Edition, then you'll know how handy F12 can be, to navigate around code.
With IoC you'll be taken to the Interface, and then you'll need to find all references using a particular interface. Only one extra step, but for a tool that's used so much, it frustrates me.
Steven is on the ball
With Visual Studio 2015 I can simply do CTRL + F12 to find the
implementations of an interface.
Yes, but you have to then trawl through a list of both usages as well as the declaration. (Actually I think in the latest VS, the declaration lists separately, but it's still an extra mouse click, taking your hands away from the keyboard. And I should say this is a limitation of Visual Studio, not able to take you to an only interface implementation directly.

There are many 'textbook' arguments in favor of using IoC, but in my personal experience, the gains are/were:
Possibility to test only parts of the project, and mock some other parts. For example, if you have a component returning configuration from DB, it's easy to mock it so that your test can work without a real DB. With static classes this is not possible.
Better visibility and control of dependencies. With the static classes it's very easy to add some dependecies without even noticing, that can create problems later. With IoC this is more explicit and visible.
More explicit initialization order. With static classes this can be often a black box, and there can be latent problems due to circular usage.
The only inconvenience for me was that by placing everything before interfaces it's not possible to navigate directly to the implementation from the usage (F12).
However, it is the developers of a project who can judge best the pros and cons in the particular case.

Was there a reason why you didn't choose to use an IOC Library (StructureMap, Ninject, Autofac, etc)?
Using any of these would have made your life much easier.
Although David L has already made an excellent set of commentaries on your points, I'll add my own as well.
Much bigger codesize
I am not sure how you ended up with a larger codebase; the typical setup for an IOC library is pretty small, and since you are defining your invariants (dependencies) in the class constructors, you are also removing some code (i.e. the "new xyz()" stuff) that you don't need any more.
Ravioli-code instead of spaghetti-code
I happen to quite like ravioli :)
Slower performance, need to initialize all dependencies in constructor even if the method I want to call has only one dependency
If you are doing this then you are not really using Dependency Injection at all. You should be receiving ready-made, fully loaded object graphs via the dependency arguments declared in the constructor parameters of the class itself - not creating them in the constructor!
Most modern IOC libraries are ridiculously fast, and will never, ever be a performance problem.
Here's a good video that proves the point.
Harder to understand when no IDE is used
That's true, but it also means you can take the opportunity to think in terms of abstractions. So for example, you can look at a piece of code
public class Something
{
readonly IFrobber _frobber;
public Something(IFrobber frobber)
{
_frobber=frobber;
}
public void LetsFrobSomething(Thing theThing)
{
_frobber.Frob(theThing)
}
}
When you are looking at this code and trying to figure out if it works, or if it is the root cause of a problem, you can ignore the actual IFrobber implementation; it just represents the abstract capability to Frob something, and you don't need to mentally carry along how any particular Frobber might do its work. you can focus on making sure that this class does what it's supposed to - namely, delegating some work to a Frobber of some kind.
Note also that you don't even need to use interfaces here; you can go ahead and inject concrete implementations as well. However that tends to violate the Dependency Inversion principle (which is only tangenitally related to the DI we are talking about here) because it forces the class to depend on a concretion as opposed to an abstraction.
Some errors are pushed to run-time
No more or less than they would be with manually constructing graphs in the constructor;
Adding additional dependency (DI framework itself)
That is also true, but most IOC libraries are pretty small and unobtrusive, and at some point you have to decide if the tradeoff of having a slightly larger production artifact is worth it (it really is)
New staff have to learn DI first in order to work with it
That isn't really any different than would be the case with any new technology :) Learning to use an IOC library tends to open the mind to other possibilities like TDD, the SOLID principles and so forth, which is never a bad thing!
A lot of boilerplate code, which is bad for creative people (for example copy instances from constructor to properties...)
I don't understand this one, how you might end up with much boilerplate code; I wouldn't count storing the given dependencies in private readonly members as boilerplate worth talking about - bearing in mind that if you have more than 3 or 4 dependencies per class you are likely to be in violation of the SRP and should rethink your design.
Finally if you are not convinced by any of the arguments put forth here, I would still recommend you read Mark Seeman's "Dependency Injection in .Net". (or indeed anything else he has to say on DI which you can find on his blog).
I promise you will learn some useful things and I can tell you, it changed the way I write software for the better.

if you have to initialise dependencies manually in the code, you're doing something wrong. General patter for IoC is constructor injection or, probably, property injection. Class or controller shouldn't know about DI container at all.
Generally, all you have to do is:
configure container, like Interface = Class in Singleton scope
Use it, like Controller(Interface interface) {}
Benefit from controlling all dependencies in one place
I dont see any boilerplate code or slower performance or anything else you described. I can't really imaging how to write more or less complex app without it.
But generally, you need to decide what is more important. To please "creative people" or build maintainable and robust app.
Btw, to create property or filed from constructor you can use Alt+Enter in R# and it do all the job for you.

Why should I use IoC Container (Autofac, Ninject, Unity etc) for Dependency Injection in ASP.Net Applications?

It is kind of theoretical question.
I am already using Unity DY with Service(Facade) pattern on Business layer.
I is pretty simple to use it but...
there is obviously performance and memory overhead in every small transaction. Instead of creation of DataContext (read it like "sql-connection") i am create several service objects by unity.
Example:
simple operation "GetAllArticles" cause creation of
Useless:
UserService (for permission checks)
ArticleService (for Article Crud operation)
And usefull:
DataContext (for the articleService)
ArticleViewModels.
But what if is an HightLoadApplication, and billions of people over the world, trying to get article from my super site? What about garbage collector and server's cpu temperature?
So:
Am i understand work with unity(or any other) correct?
Is there any alternative solutions?
what should i do in a case of highload application
I will be happy to hear your opinion and experience, even if it is not panacea or "best practice".

When we write code, we aim for SOLID Design Principals which make code adaptive to change.
S : The single responsibility principle
O : The open/closed principle
L : The Liskov substitution principle
I : Interface segregation
D : Dependence injection
In order to achieve first four - SOLI, we want to inject dependencies.
Is there any alternative solutions?
You can achieve dependency injection (DI) either manually (Poor Man's Dependency Injection) or using Inversion of Control (IoC) container (like Autofac, Ninject, Structure Map, Unity and so).
what should i do in a case of highload application
Using IoC container for DI is never been an issue for speed.
Mark Seemann said , "creating an object instance is something the .Net Framework does extremely fast. any performance bottleneck your application may have will appear in other place, so don't worry about it."
The bottom line is I personally use IoC container in every ASP.Net MVC and Web API projects. Besides, I hardly see any open source MVC and Web API application which does not use IoC container.

For understanding how DI works, take a look at this great article:
http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html
I also recommend reading even half of this book by Mark Seemann:
http://www.amazon.ca/Dependency-Injection-NET-Mark-Seemann/dp/1935182501/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454620933&sr=8-1&keywords=mark+seemann
Unless you are trying to set a performance record I do not believe DI will have a noticeable effect on performance. We have been using SimpleInjector for the past year (it is one of the fastest out there) on a website that gets several million hits per day and the performance effect is almost unmeasurable.

ASP.NET MVC3 Hand coding IoC

Ninject, Sprint.NET, Unity, Autofac, Castle.Windsor are all examples are IoC frameworks that are available. However, I like the learning curve and control of writing my own. It is definitely common practice to not "re-invent the wheel" and just use pre-existing structures. If your comment is along those lines please be gentle.
Can IoC be implemented without the use of XML? It seems to me most, if not all, of the aforementioned frameworks use XML but I would much rather just write mine in C# instead of using XML to load a .dll. The C# is all converted into one .dll eventually anyway.
From my understanding, if wrong please correct, IoC can be used with DI to make the functionality of classes be based off of their definition and implementation while allowing for a separation of concerns.
This is accomplished in C# using microsoft's library System.ComponentModel.IContainer by having a class which inherits it. A class, such as Product, would have an interface IProduct. A generic constructor would then inherit from IContainer and in the constructor, allow a repository to be passed in, an instantiated object to be passed in, and a function to be passed in. This would allow a controller action to then instantiate an interface (IProduct), instantiate the generic constructor with the current repository instance, and then pass it the interface and function.
Is this setup accurate?
I am still trying to learn more about this topic, and have read the wiki articles on IoC, DI, and read about Castle.Windsor, ninject, Unity, and looked over multiple definitions from the MSDN regarding C# libraries which are used. Any assistance, corrections, or suggestions, are greatly appreciated. Thanks

Can IoC be implemented without the use of XML?
Yes, Ninject, Unity, Castle Windsor and Autofac can be configured without using any XML at all. (not sure about Spring.NET, last time I used it it was impossible, version 1.3)
From my understanding, if wrong please correct, IoC can be used with
DI to make the functionality of classes be based off of their
definition and implementation while allowing for a separation of
concerns.
If under "IoC" you mean "IoC container" then yes, it can be used with DI, but since DI is a particular case of Inversion Of Control your IoC container will be just a container for you dependencies. By just having it your will not magically get any DI-friendly types. It's just a support for managing your inverted dependencies.
Edit
As Mystere Man pointed in his answer you need to improve you understanding of the IoC containers. So I would recommend to read this wonderful book (from Mark Seeman) about all that stuff.

I think it is a great exercise to start without a DI container. Before focusing on using a DI framework, focus on best patterns and practices. Especially, design all classes around Dependency Injection and make sure your code follows the SOLID principles. Both sounds pretty easy, but this takes a shift in mindset and a lot of practice before you will get this right (but is well worth it).
When you do this, and do this well, you will quickly notice that your application will evolve in amazing ways. Your code will be testable and extendable in ways that you never imagined before, without your code to rot over time (however, it keeps constant focus to prevent code from rotting).
Still, when you do all this right (which –again- takes a lot of practice), you will still have one part of your application that, despite your best efforts, will get more complex and harder to maintain, as the application grows. This is the part of the application where you wire all dependencies together: the Composition Root.
And this is where DI containers come in. They have fancy names and compete with each other over features, but their goal can be stated in a single sentence:
The goal of a DI container is to keep the Composition Root
maintainable.
Although you can write your own simple DI container to wire up your dependencies, to prevent your Composition Root to become a big fragile, ever changing ball of mud, the container must at least have one crucial feature: Automatic Constructor Injection (a.k.a. auto-wiring). With auto-wiring, the container will look at the constructor arguments of a type that it needs to create, and it will inject the dependencies in it based on the types of those arguments. This feature will make the difference between a maintenance nightmare and a healthy Composition Root. Although creating your own container that supports auto-wiring isn't that hard (with expression trees it takes about 20 lines of code), the moment you start needing auto-wiring is the time to start using one of the existing DI frameworks.
So in conclusion, if you feel it helps you in the learning experience by doing this by hand, please do, as long as you stick to SOLID, DI, DRY, and TDD. When the burden of changing your Composition Root for each change in the application gets too big (which will be sooner than you might expect), switch to an established framework.

I would suggest using an existing DI container first, to understand how it works from the end user perspective. Then you can go about re-designing the wheel. My favorite saying is "You have to know the rules before you can break them".
Some of what you've said doesn't make a lot of sense. you don't have to use System.ComponentModel.IContainer in any framekwork i know of. Maybe Unity requires that (Microsoft's container) but none of the others do. I'm not familiar with Unity thogh.

Should I use Microsoft.Practicies.Unity.IUnityContainer in my MVVM application?

Jason Dolinger in his video located here (hot available right now) www.lab49.com/files/videos/Jason%20Dolinger%20MVVM.wmv (from 0.59 to 1.04) uses such code:
public partial App: Application
{
protected override void OnStartup(StartupEventArgs e)
{
base.OnStartup(e);
IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer();
RandomQuoteSource source = new RandomQuoteSource();
container.RegisterInstance<IQuoteSource>(source);
WatchList window = container.Resolve<WatchList>();
window.Show();
}
}
He uses class IUnityContainer which I can not found. As I understand here we just create a window (so container.Resolve call can be replaced with new WatchList(..., also somehow we associate RandomQouteSource as an implementation for IQouteSource, however I don't have clear understanding how this should be used later.
The questions are:
how do you create main Windows in your MVVM application, do you also use IUnityContainer for that?
is it good technics in general? is it well-known? is it default way to do these things? what alternativies do I have?
where can I find Microsoft.Practicies.Unity.dll?

Should you?
That's up to you. It can be complicated. If you use it correctly, it can be worth it, both for your code, and for your knowledge of how your code works.
You will be able to identify the parts of your application that should only touch other parts at arms length. You will be more free to make changes to your code without impacting other portions of your code. You will also have an easier time creating unit tests that use mock objects, but that's just a side benefit.
You'll have to read some articles on this topics and see if it makes sense to you.
(to be fair, it really isn't complicated - it just seems that way while you're learning it, or while you're trying to explain it to someone who is new to the concepts)
Unity and Dependency Injection
IUnityContainer is part of Unity, which is a Dependency Injection container library.
It can be coupled with the PRISM framework for use in WPF/Silverlight.
Dependency Injection has a lot of rules you'll want to follow to get the maximum benefit. I don't see an easy or effective "getting started" guide on Unity's site, and Mark Seemann's book on Dependency Injection in .Net isn't free.
So instead I suggest you check out an intro tutorial on Dependency Injection on a site that has a good tutorial:
https://github.com/ninject/ninject/wiki/Getting-Started
This is not the Unity framework, so the code won't directly compile...
...but it should teach you the basics of what Dependency Injection is, and why you'd want to use it. Then you should be able to follow the sample code and videos on the Unity page.
If you skip these steps, you're going to get confused very quickly, and will probably shoot yourself in the foot at least a few dozen times.
Creating Windows
You don't use the container except in that one function. Use it anywhere else, and you're not using the DI container correctly. You'll just use the container to register your views, view models, and models, resolve the main window you previously registered, and dispose the container when you're done.
This process is called the "Three Calls Pattern". Unfortunately I don't have any generic examples for Unity, but here is an article on the three calls pattern for yet-another DI container library.
You might also see this mentioned in that Ninject tutorial that I linked above.

It's a well known technic called Dependency Injection.
An alternativ is to create the needed dependency by hand.
You can download the unity assemblies at patterns & practices - Unity from codeplex.
Take a look at codeproject article for a tutorial.
I havent worked with wpf but i would go the same way to minimize the dependencies
and get a better testability.
Edit
Here is another example from codeplex.
But read this article from here stack first, cause it seems to be a pain

using dependency injection is a good practice in general. it lets your classes worry about their own concerns and leave the framework to worry about managing dependencies. this leads to more focused, more maintainable, and more testable code in your classes. unity is just one of many such frameworks and it could be argued there are others that are better, such as structuremap and castle windsor. using a container basically means that in one place you set up a registry from which you resolve your classes with their dependencies and you classes specify in their constructor or with public properties those things on which they depend. if you resolve a class from the container, it will automatically resolve its dependencies according to the type of the dependency based on how that type is registered with a container.
the easiest way to include unity in your project is to use nuget. just issue: install-package unity. you can also download binaries and source and get a lot more information at the codeplex project for unity: http://unity.codeplex.com/.

One suggestion is Ninject - a lightweight, easy to use DI-tool.

MEF Best practices: Where in the application I create container and where to call Compose()?

I have decided to use MEF for a plugin pattern I have and found MEF easy to pick up and not intrusive at all. I looked at samples and found them very easy to work with.
However, as soon as started implementing, I started struggling with the composition. Let's say I have a Class which has [ImportMany] on one of its properties. All examples I have seen, they create the Container in the class which has imports (let's call it composable) and basically the class composes itself. That might be OK for an example but surely putting knowledge of how the plugin gets populated is too much for the composable to know.
I can happily create a singleton container and access it in my composable but again the composable has to explicitly call Compose() on itself and I am not happy with that either as it is like a dependency injection scenario where the class pro-actively calls the Resolve() on the container. So I do not want to use it for just Service Location.
To make the matters worse I am also using Windsor Castle for DI and I am not sure how MEF and Windsor must work together.
I have really looked around and have not been able to find any guidance and sample on how to do MEF right. Now it might be that I have not looked around or I do not know MEF well enough (which is true) but will value your views from the experience of actually using it in the real world.

Do not do that. I used MEF for my last project and I wish to not do that.
There's a good idea behind it (composition) and I was do that manually for years. I was happy for the first official version in .NET 4.0 but there a re still a lot of design problems.
Unfortunately it's part of Microsoft policy to leave testing and bug finding to end users and feedback the hard-earned bugs and suggestions.
MEF is good if you use the way the example says. As soon as you need a little change you will find there's not enough documentation and nobody will answer you. Here are some of my never resolved issues with MEF and you can find my questions in codeplex.com which never had been answered by the developer team:
1) How to pass parameters to part's constructors (they may say use ExportFactory which is shipped in codeplex version but I wasted a long time on this, and I can say there's not an acceptable solution for that)
2) How to set configurations for parts ? (I ended-up passing configurations to parts through a method which is a bad idea, but the best available)
3) MEF is very slow because it use reflection under the hood. For my case loading 1,000 parts takes 60 seconds.
4) Debugging is awesome. You get unclear messages. You will end-up downloading the full source from codeplex and search your exceptions inside the code.
After all I think if you have other choices, let MEF gets mature and use the next version.
I just shared my own experience.

The recommended pattern is for you to create the container once in your hosting code, and only access it from there to get the "root" part. You would call container.GetExport<Root>() if it's OK for MEF to create the part for you, otherwise you would call container.SatisfyImports(root).
The root part should import the things it needs, and the parts supplying those exports should import what they need, and so on. MEF will create the whole graph and none of the parts need to call into the container directly. The samples often have very few different parts, so it isn't always obvious that the container creation and composition should only occur once, even in more complex applications.
There are situations where you may have object that need their imports satisfied, but can't be created by MEF. An example of this is WPF/Silverlight UI objects that are created by the Xaml parser. In this case you might resort to a service which allows these objects to request that their imports be satisfied.
I don't have much advice for how to use MEF and another DI container in the same application. If there isn't much interaction between the parts of the system composed with MEF and Windsor it might work without much trouble. If you need components from one container to be injected with components from the other container, it won't be as simple. One way would be to have a service that a component would have to call to resolve its dependencies from the other container. The other possibility would be to have the containers themselves linked. You can do this in theory with MEF by writing an ExportProvider that accesses the Windsor container. In practice it would require a very deep level of knowledge about MEF, and it might not be possible to get it to work exactly how you'd like.