I've been experimenting with the dynamic component loader in Angular2. An issue, possibly related to this: https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/4330 , seems to be that once a component is loaded with, say, the loadIntoLocation() function, the injector cannot find the parent component's injector or the things that were injected into it. As that article suggests, you can pass an array of Resolved Providers obtained from the parent's injector (Injector.resolve) into the last parameter of loadIntoLocation().
This seems to work initially, but I have also found that any children of the dynamically loaded components also have the same problem. The injector of the children does not know to look up the injection tree for providers, so a standard injection in the constructor of the children like
constructor( myComponent: MyComponent)
does not work. The children (of the dynamically loaded components) are not dynamically loaded but just "normally" instantiated using a template, selector etc. I am wondering:
Is this (still) a known issue or am I misunderstanding anything?
If a known issue is there any workaround at the child level? I tried a constructor as above and also using #Host and also using forward ref + #host but none work. Is there another way to manually pass bindings to a component that is not dynamically loaded?
Is there any other possible workaround for this?
The problems seems to be caused by the resolved providers passed to loadToLocation(). DI is hierarchical and DI tries to resolve required types by walking the hierarchy towards the root, but the chain is broken at loadToLocation() because there providers are passed instead of a child-injector.
The dynamically added component and its children can only resolve providers passed to loadToLocation() or listed in the providers list of the dynamically added component itself (or one of its children if it is a (grand-)parent of the actually resolved component).
When DI walks upwards from within the dynamically inserted tree to resolve a dependency, the iteration stops at the component added by loadToLocation() because the injector of this component doesn't have a parent injector (which would be the injector of the host component where the dynamically added component was added).
See also https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/5990
Correction on this. I have conflated another problem in my code with what I thought was the bug described above. The children of my dynamically loaded component were derived from abstract classes. I was trying to inject the abstract class into the children as opposed to the actual implementation which, per this
Interface based programming with TypeScript, Angular 2 & SystemJS
I have learned you cannot do. The injection tree does get broken upon a dynamic load (which I do think should be corrected), but I take back the part about the children thereafter not being able to traverse their own tree. Thanks for the comments - it helped me sort it out.
I'd like to ask who is responsible for setting up the injected dependency's state?
For e.g when class A depends on class B, is instance A's responsibility to setup instance B or should it be done somewhere else? Why?
My questions is much more a general one, but I put the concrete situation here:
I have a Context class which handles interactions and states made to a given chart, e.g. you can switch between two series. However this class is also setting up chart's look and displayed data with by delegating them to other (injected) classes. Currently the Context constructor sets up its dependencies state based on its constructor parameters (e.g.: highlight one point on the chart, telling which series to display, etc). I'm not sure that this design is good and would like to get a deeper understanding about the right way. The programming language is Javascript (if it's matters).
Thanks,
Peter
when class A depends on class B, is instance A's responsibility to setup instance B or should it be done somewhere else?
If A would be responsibly of setting up B, this would make A violate the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP) that says:
High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should
depend on abstractions.
The DIP is the driving force behind the Dependency Injection pattern.
But if A can't be responsible of creating B, who is? The answer to this question is: The Composition Root:
A Composition Root is a (preferably) unique location in an application
where modules are composed together.
Using a Composition Root is the only way that you can keep both A and B (and everything else in the graph) free from having a dependency on a different module.
I have a bit of a dilemma, which to be honest is a fringe case but still poses an issue.
Currently I am using Ninject MVC and bind all my controllers like so:
Kernel.Bind<SomeController>.ToSelf();
Which works a treat for 99% of things that I have needed to do, however at the moment I am doing some wacky stuff around dynamic routing and dynamic controllers which require me to manually write a method to get the type of a controller from ninject. Now initially I thought it would be easy, but its not... I was expecting that I could get the controller based on its name, but that didnt work.
Kernel.Get<IController>("SomeController");
That got me thinking that its probably because it only knows about a binding to SomeController, not IController. So I thought, I can just write all my bindings like so:
Kernel.Bind<IController>.To<SomeController>().Named("SomeController");
This way it should be easy to get the type of the controller from the name doing the previous code, however if I were to bind this way, I would have a problem when I come to unbind the controllers (as plugins can be loaded and unloaded at runtime). So the normal:
Kernel.Unbind<SomeController>()
Which was great, will no longer work, and I would have to do:
Kernel.Unbind<IController>();
However then I realised that I need to give it some constraint to tell it which binding for this type I want to unbind, and there seems to be no overloads or DSL available to do this...
So I am trapped between a rock and a hard place, as I need to satisfy the ControllerLookup method, but also need to keep it so I can add and remove bindings easily at runtime.
protected override Type GetControllerType(RequestContext requestContext, string controllerName) {
//... find and return type from ninject
}
Anyone have any ideas?
(Just incase anyone questions why I am doing this, its because of the way I am loading plugins, Ninject knows about the types and the namespaces, but within the context of creating a controller it doesn't know the namespace just the controller name, so I do this to satisfy the isolation of the plugin, and the location of the dynamic controller, it is a roundabout way of doing it, but it is what people have done with AutoFac before Example of similar thing with AutoFac)
In my opinion the bindings should be created once at application startup and not change anymore after the first resolve. Everything else can lead to strange issues. Unless you have proper isolation using an AppDomain for each plugin you can not really unload them anyway. Instead of unloading bindings you can make them conditional and disable them using some configuration.
If you really want to unload bindings then I suggest not to do it for single bindings but take advantage of modules. Load all bindings belonging to one plugin together in one or several modules and unload those modules instead of the single bindings.
When coding, I often come across the following pattern:
-A method calls another method (Fine), but the method being called/callee takes parameters, so in the wrapping method, I pass in parameters. Problem is, this dependency carrying can go on and on. How could I avoid this (any sample code appreciated)?
Thanks
Passing a parameter along just because a lower-layer component needs it is a sign of a Leaky Abstraction. It can often be more effective to refactor dependencies to aggregate services and hide each dependency behind an interface.
Cross-cutting concerns (which are often the most common reason to pass along parameters) are best addressed by Decorators.
If you use a DI Container with interception capabilities, you can take advantage of those to implement Decorators very efficiently (some people refer to this as a container's AOP capabilities).
You can use a dependency injection framework. One such is Guice: see http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/
Step 1: Instead of passing everything as separate arguments, group the arguments into a class, let's say X.
Step 2: Add getters to the class X to get the relevant information. The callee should use the getters to get the information instead of relying on parameters.
Step 3: Create an interface class of which class X inherits. Put all the getters in the interface (in C++ this is as pure virtual methods).
Step 4: Make the called methods only depend on the interface.
Refactoring: Introduce Parameter Object
You have a group of parameters that naturally go together?
Replace them with an object.
http://www.refactoring.com/catalog/introduceParameterObject.html
The advantage of the parameter object is that the calls passing them around don't need to change if you add/remove parameters.
(given the context of your answers, I don't think that an IoC library or dependency injection patterns are really what you're after)
Since they cannot be (easily) unit tested, most developers choose to inject objects into Views. Since the views are not (normally) used to construct other views, that is where your DI chain ends. You may have the issue (which I have run into every once in ahwile) where you need to construct objects in the correct order especially when using a DI framework like Unity where an attemt to resolve the object will deadlock. The main thing you need to worry about is circular dependency. In order to do this, read the following article:
Can dependency injection prevent a circular dependency?
I'm refactoring a class and adding a new dependency to it. The class is currently taking its existing dependencies in the constructor. So for consistency, I add the parameter to the constructor.
Of course, there are a few subclasses plus even more for unit tests, so now I am playing the game of going around altering all the constructors to match, and it's taking ages.
It makes me think that using properties with setters is a better way of getting dependencies. I don't think injected dependencies should be part of the interface to constructing an instance of a class. You add a dependency and now all your users (subclasses and anyone instantiating you directly) suddenly know about it. That feels like a break of encapsulation.
This doesn't seem to be the pattern with the existing code here, so I am looking to find out what the general consensus is, pros and cons of constructors versus properties. Is using property setters better?
Well, it depends :-).
If the class cannot do its job without the dependency, then add it to the constructor. The class needs the new dependency, so you want your change to break things. Also, creating a class that is not fully initialized ("two-step construction") is an anti-pattern (IMHO).
If the class can work without the dependency, a setter is fine.
The users of a class are supposed to know about the dependencies of a given class. If I had a class that, for example, connected to a database, and didn't provide a means to inject a persistence layer dependency, a user would never know that a connection to the database would have to be available. However, if I alter the constructor I let the users know that there is a dependency on the persistence layer.
Also, to prevent yourself from having to alter every use of the old constructor, simply apply constructor chaining as a temporary bridge between the old and new constructor.
public class ClassExample
{
public ClassExample(IDependencyOne dependencyOne, IDependencyTwo dependencyTwo)
: this (dependnecyOne, dependencyTwo, new DependnecyThreeConcreteImpl())
{ }
public ClassExample(IDependencyOne dependencyOne, IDependencyTwo dependencyTwo, IDependencyThree dependencyThree)
{
// Set the properties here.
}
}
One of the points of dependency injection is to reveal what dependencies the class has. If the class has too many dependencies, then it may be time for some refactoring to take place: Does every method of the class use all the dependencies? If not, then that's a good starting point to see where the class could be split up.
Of course, putting on the constructor means that you can validate all at once. If you assign things into read-only fields then you have some guarantees about your object's dependencies right from construction time.
It is a real pain adding new dependencies, but at least this way the compiler keeps complaining until it's correct. Which is a good thing, I think.
If you have large number of optional dependencies (which is already a smell) then probably setter injection is the way to go. Constructor injection better reveals your dependencies though.
The general preferred approach is to use constructor injection as much as possible.
Constructor injection exactly states what are the required dependencies for the object to function properly - nothing is more annoying than newing up an object and having it crashing when calling a method on it because some dependency is not set. The object returned by a constructor should be in a working state.
Try to have only one constructor, it keeps the design simple and avoids ambiguity (if not for humans, for the DI container).
You can use property injection when you have what Mark Seemann calls a local default in his book "Dependency Injection in .NET": the dependency is optional because you can provide a fine working implementation but want to allow the caller to specify a different one if needed.
(Former answer below)
I think that constructor injection are better if the injection is mandatory. If this adds too many constructors, consider using factories instead of constructors.
The setter injection is nice if the injection is optional, or if you want to change it halfway trough. I generally don't like setters, but it's a matter of taste.
It's largely a matter of personal taste.
Personally I tend to prefer the setter injection, because I believe it gives you more flexibility in the way that you can substitute implementations at runtime.
Furthermore, constructors with a lot of arguments are not clean in my opinion, and the arguments provided in a constructor should be limited to non-optional arguments.
As long as the classes interface (API) is clear in what it needs to perform its task,
you're good.
I prefer constructor injection because it helps "enforce" a class's dependency requirements. If it's in the c'tor, a consumer has to set the objects to get the app to compile. If you use setter injection they may not know they have a problem until run time - and depending on the object, it might be late in run time.
I still use setter injection from time to time when the injected object maybe needs a bunch of work itself, like initialization.
I personally prefer the Extract and Override "pattern" over injecting dependencies in the constructor, largely for the reason outlined in your question. You can set the properties as virtual and then override the implementation in a derived testable class.
I perfer constructor injection, because this seems most logical. Its like saying my class requires these dependencies to do its job. If its an optional dependency then properties seem reasonable.
I also use property injection for setting things that the container does not have a references to such as an ASP.NET View on a presenter created using the container.
I dont think it breaks encapsulation. The inner workings should remain internal and the dependencies deal with a different concern.
One option that might be worth considering is composing complex multiple-dependencies out of simple single dependencies. That is, define extra classes for compound dependencies. This makes things a little easier WRT constructor injection - fewer parameters per call - while still maintaining the must-supply-all-dependencies-to-instantiate thing.
Of course it makes most sense if there's some kind of logical grouping of dependencies, so the compound is more than an arbitrary aggregate, and it makes most sense if there are multiple dependents for a single compound dependency - but the parameter block "pattern" has been around for a long time, and most of those that I've seen have been pretty arbitrary.
Personally, though, I'm more a fan of using methods/property-setters to specify dependencies, options etc. The call names help describe what is going on. It's a good idea to provide example this-is-how-to-set-it-up snippets, though, and make sure the dependent class does enough error checks. You might want to use a finite state model for the setup.
I recently ran into a situation where I had multiple dependencies in a class, but only one of the dependencies was necessarily going to change in each implementation. Since the data access and error logging dependencies would likely only be changed for testing purposes, I added optional parameters for those dependencies and provided default implementations of those dependencies in my constructor code. In this way, the class maintains its default behavior unless overridden by the consumer of the class.
Using optional parameters can only be accomplished in frameworks that support them, such as .NET 4 (for both C# and VB.NET, though VB.NET has always had them). Of course, you can accomplish similar functionality by simply using a property that can be reassigned by the consumer of your class, but you don't get the advantage of immutability provided by having a private interface object assigned to a parameter of the constructor.
All of this being said, if you are introducing a new dependency that must be provided by every consumer, you're going to have to refactor your constructor and all code that consumers your class. My suggestions above really only apply if you have the luxury of being able to provide a default implementation for all of your current code but still provide the ability to override the default implementation if necessary.
Constructor injection does explicitly reveal the dependencies, making code more readable and less prone to unhandled run-time errors if arguments are checked in the constructor, but it really does come down to personal opinion, and the more you use DI the more you'll tend to sway back and forth one way or the other depending on the project. I personally have issues with code smells like constructors with a long list of arguments, and I feel that the consumer of an object should know the dependencies in order to use the object anyway, so this makes a case for using property injection. I don't like the implicit nature of property injection, but I find it more elegant, resulting in cleaner-looking code. But on the other hand, constructor injection does offer a higher degree of encapsulation, and in my experience I try to avoid default constructors, as they can have an ill effect on the integrity of the encapsulated data if one is not careful.
Choose injection by constructor or by property wisely based on your specific scenario. And don't feel that you have to use DI just because it seems necessary and it will prevent bad design and code smells. Sometimes it's not worth the effort to use a pattern if the effort and complexity outweighs the benefit. Keep it simple.
This is an old post, but if it is needed in future maybe this is of any use:
https://github.com/omegamit6zeichen/prinject
I had a similar idea and came up with this framework. It is probably far from complete, but it is an idea of a framework focusing on property injection
It depends on how you want to implement.
I prefer constructor injection wherever I feel the values that go in to the implementation doesnt change often. Eg: If the compnay stragtegy is go with oracle server, I will configure my datsource values for a bean achiveing connections via constructor injection.
Else, if my app is a product and chances it can connect to any db of the customer , I would implement such db configuration and multi brand implementation through setter injection. I have just taken an example but there are better ways of implementing the scenarios I mentioned above.
When to use Constructor injection?
When we want to make sure that the Object is created with all of its dependencies and to ensure that required dependencies are not null.
When to use Setter injection?
When we are working with optional dependencies that can be assigned reasonable default values within the class. Otherwise, not-null checks must be performed everywhere the code uses the dependency.
Additionally, setter methods make objects of that class open to reconfiguration or re-injection at a later time.
Sources:
Spring documentation ,
Java Revisited