I am in the process of migrating from StructureMap to Simple Injector in a ASP.NET MVC3 application.
I am using the MVC3 extension for controller DI, but I am running into an issue with trying to replace the static aspects of StructureMap. We have calls to
StructureMap.ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Interface>()
throughout different layers of the app. It does not look like Simple Injector has a way to do that.
Am I missing something? Or is Simple Injector not applicable for my application?
Please advise and thanks in advance.
Allowing the application to directly access the container is considered to be bad practice. It is an form of the Service Locator anti-pattern.
Because this is considered to be a bad thing, Simple Injector does not contain anything like StructureMap's ObjectFactory.GetInstance. And as a matter of fact, the author of StructureMap is considering the removal of the ObjectFactory API in a furure release of StructureMap.
However, nothing stops you from storing the SimpleInjector.Container instance in a static field and let the application use this:
// Service Locator implementation in low application layer.
public static class ObjectFactory
{
private static SimpleInjector.Container container;
public static void SetContainer(Container container)
{
ObjectFactory.container = container;
}
public static T GetInstance<T>() where T : class
{
return container.GetInstance<T>();
}
}
In Composition root:
public static void Initialize()
{
var container = new Container();
InitializeContainer(container);
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(
new SimpleInjectorDependencyResolver(container));
// Set the service locator here
ObjectFactory.SetContainer(container);
}
So there is no limitation in the Simple Injector that prevents you from doing this, but frankly, you are already witnessing one of the reasons why Service Locator is a bad thing: you switched containers and now you have to change application code.
Perhaps for now it is easiest for you to save the container in a static field (as shown in the example above), but please take the time to understand why this pattern is bad, and do refactor away from this pattern towards dependency injection (and especially constructor injection).
Related
The general question - I know that static classes should be avoided when using DI Containers, but in a project I am working on, one of the static classes is a constraint that I can not avoid. I am adding a method to that static class and I need to be able to inject a service that was created by a DI container. One approach was to add a static access to the container, but I feel that this is an anti pattern. I wanted to know if there is a more elegant way to inject a service into a static method.
The Specific question - I am developing a WPF attached property, and in the change callback I need to get an instance of a service that was registered using a Unity DI Container. The only solution I could think of was to add a static property to the bootstrapper, that would return the Unity Container.
public class Bootstrapper
{
public static UnityContainer Instance
{
get
{
return _container;
}
}
But it feels wrong to store the container in a static field.
Are there other - more elegant - solutions?
Consider a simple action filter in an ASP.NET Core MVC project that takes a dependency:
public class TestActionFilter : IAsyncActionFilter {
private readonly IMyDependency _dep;
public class TestActionFilter(IMyDependency dep)
{
_dep = dep;
}
public async Task OnActionExecutionAsync(ActionExecutingContext context,
ActionExecutionDelegate next)
{
// do things with _dep...
await next();
}
}
I already have IMyDependency registered with Simple Injector and working elsewhere. I would like for Simple Injector to handle the action filter as well.
If I add an IServiceCollection registration for the same type, it does get injected into the action filter. I do not want two bindings though and I'm trying to avoid the framework container and just stick with Simple Injector.
Is there some trick to get Simple Injector to handle my action filter? I remember there used to be some sort of "filter provider" concepts in older Simple Injector incarnations that allowed this.
At this moment, there is nothing in the Simple Injector integration package for ASP.NET Core MVC that simplifies working with filter attributes. We are still hoping that Microsoft will add simplifications to the framework to support non-conformers (since Microsoft promised to make integration as smooth as it can be), but this seems a lost cause.
There are a few solutions. An approach is to cross-wiring, as you did already. But the more you cross-wire, the more you move control out of Simple Injector and the more you lose the verification ability that Simple Injector gives. This typically won't be much a problem when all your object graphs are singletons, but that's a different discussion.
Another option is to create a proxy filter in the built-in configuration system that delegates to the real filter that is resolved from Simple Injector. Such proxy can be defined as follows:
public sealed class SimpleInjectiorAsyncActionFilterProxy<TAsyncActionFilter>
: IAsyncActionFilter
where TAsyncActionFilter : class, IAsyncActionFilter {
private readonly Container container;
public SimpleInjectiorAsyncActionFilterProxy(Container container) {
this.container = container;
}
public Task OnActionExecutionAsync(
ActionExecutingContext c, ActionExecutionDelegate n) =>
container.GetInstance<TAsyncActionFilter>().OnActionExecutionAsync(c, n);
}
This is how you hook up your filter using this proxy:
container.Register<TestActionFilter>();
services.AddMvc(options =>
{
options.Filters.Add(
new SimpleInjectiorAsyncActionFilterProxy<TestActionFilter>(container));
});
This works great for global filters. When it comes to controller or action scoped filters, take a look at passive attributes.
I'm just getting started with Unity, and I'm having trouble finding any advice about where to declare my UnityContainer object. Most of the examples that I've seen consist of just a single method where the UnityContainer object is declared at the top, then its mappings are defined, then a few object types are resolved. But how do you handle the container when you need to access it in several places throughout the program? For example, the user clicks on a button which opens a new window and that window needs a controller, which itself needs to resolve several services? I also want some of the services that Unity manages to be singletons, so wouldn't that mean that I'd have to have only a single instance of my UnityContainer throughout my program to manage those singletons?
My first thought is to have my main Program class have a static UnityContainer property or expose some sort of UnityContainerFactory class which manages a singleton UnityContainer instance, but both of those methods seem bad because they create a global property which a lot of things are dependent on.
What's the accepted way of doing this?
As noted in the other answer, you should compose the entire object graph in the Composition Root.
Don't declare the container as a static field since this would encourage developers to use it as a service locator which is an anti-pattern.
How to solve your problem?
Use Dependency Injection.
Here is an example for your special WinForms case:
In your Program.Main method, create the container, register the service (the dependency that you need to use from the other window) and then resolve the main form and run it like this:
UnityContainer container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<IService, Service>();
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Application.Run(container.Resolve<MainForm>());
In the MainForm, declare a dependency on a Func<SecondForm> where SecondForm is the form that you need to create from the main form when the button is clicked. Consider the following code inside your main form file:
public partial class MainForm : Form
{
private readonly Func<SecondForm> m_SecondFormFactory;
public MainForm(Func<SecondForm> second_form_factory)
{
m_SecondFormFactory = second_form_factory;
InitializeComponent();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
SecondForm second_form = m_SecondFormFactory();
second_form.Show();
}
}
Please note that Func<SecondForm> acts as some kind of factory. I use it in this case because unity has a feature to support late construction of dependencies via Func.
The SecondForm has a dependency on IService like this:
public partial class SecondForm : Form
{
private readonly IService m_Service;
public SecondForm(IService service)
{
m_Service = sevice;
InitializeComponent();
}
//Use service here
}
You can now use IService from the second form.
Using Seemann words:
As close as possible to the application's entry point.
Give a look at http://blog.ploeh.dk/2011/07/28/CompositionRoot/ from the great Seemann.
I think that is totally acceptable for the main container to be a static field that get disposed together with your application, just remember to don't tie your classes to your container.
Get noticed of the so called "Service Locator" (again from Seemann: http://blog.ploeh.dk/2010/02/03/ServiceLocatorisanAnti-Pattern/)
Where to declare it really depends on the application, I'd go for the startup class of an owin application or the Main method of a console/WPF app.
I am new to Repository and DI and trying to implement in my MVC 5 project.
I implemented Constructor Injection where in my controller has a constructor like this:
IBook _ibook;
public Test(IBook ibook)
{
_ibook = ibook;
}
Without any DI library, it throws an error: There is no empty constructor.
To avoid this, I added one more constructor as below:
public Test ():this(new Book())
{
}
Since I am new to DI, I don't want to risk my project by using DI library which can later throw some error that I may not be able to resolve.
I want to know what issues I might encounter if I am not using DI library.
In case it is recommended, which DI library is good for beginners? I have seen few videos of NInject and Unity.
It is a good idea to delay any decision to use some kind of tool or library until the last responsible moment. With a good design you can add a DI library later on. This means that you practice Pure DI.
The preferred interception point in MVC is the IControllerFactory abstraction since it allows you to intercept the creation of MVC controllers, and doing so prevents you from having to implement a second constructor (which is an anti-pattern). Although it is possible to use IDependencyResolver, the use of that abstraction is much less convenient because it is also called by MVC to resolve things you are typically not interested in.
A custom IControllerFactory that will act as your Composition Root can be implemented as follows:
public sealed class CompositionRoot : DefaultControllerFactory
{
private static string connectionString =
ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["app"].ConnectionString;
private static Func<BooksContext> bookContextProvider = GetCurrentBooksContext;
private static IBookRepository bookRepo = new BookRepository(bookContextProvider);
private static IOrderBookHandler orderBookHandler = new OrderBookHandler(bookRepo);
protected override IController GetControllerInstance(RequestContext _, Type type) {
// Unfortunately, because of MVC's design, controllers are not stateless, and
// you will have to create them per request.
if (type == typeof(OrderBookController))
return new HomeController(orderBookHandler);
if (type == typeof(BooksController))
return new BooksController(bookRepo);
// [other controllers here]
return base.GetControllerInstance(_, type);
}
private static BooksContext GetCurrentBooksContext() {
return GetRequestItem<BooksContext>(() => new BooksContext(connectionString));
}
private static T GetRequestItem<T>(Func<T> valueFactory) where T : class {
var context = HttpContext.Current;
if (context == null) throw new InvalidOperationException("No web request.");
var val = (T)context.Items[typeof(T).Name];
if (val == null) context.Items[typeof(T).Name] = val = valueFactory();
return val;
}
}
Your new controller factory can be hooked into MVC as follows:
public class MvcApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication
{
protected void Application_Start() {
ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new CompositionRoot());
// the usual stuff here
}
}
When you practice Pure DI, you will typically see your Composition Root consist of a big list of if statements. One statement per root object in your application.
Starting off with Pure DI has some interesting advantages. The most prominent one is compile time support, because this is something you will lose immediately when you start using a DI library. Some libraries try minimize this loss by allowing you to verify your configuration in a way that the compiler would do; but this verification is done at runtime and the feedback cycle is never as short as that which the compiler can give you.
Please don't be tempted to simplify development by implementing some mechanism that allows creating types using reflection, because in doing so you are building your own DI library. There are many downsides to this, e.g. you lose compile time support while not getting back any of the benefits that an existing DI library can give you.
When your Composition Root is starting to get hard to maintain, that is the moment you should consider switching from Pure DI to a DI library.
Do note that in my example Composition Root, all application components (except for the controllers) are defined as singleton. Singleton means that the application will only have one instance of each component. This design needs your components to be stateless (and thus thread-safe), anything that has state (such as the BooksContext) should not be injected through the constructor. In the example I used a Func<T> as the provider of the BooksContext which is stored per request.
Making your object graphs singletons has many interesting advantages. For instance, it prevents you from making common configuration errors such as Captive Dependencies and it forces you into a more SOLID design. And besides, some DI libraries are very slow, and making everything a singleton might prevent performance problems when switching to a DI library later on. On the other hand, the downside of this design is that everybody on the team should understand that all components must be stateless. Storing state in components will cause needless grief and aggravation. My experience is that stateful components are much easier to detect than most DI configuration errors. I have also noticed that having singleton components is something that feels natural to most developers, especially those who aren't experienced with DI. For a detailed discussion on the two composition models to choose from and their downsides and advantages, take a look at this serie of blog posts.
Note that in the example I manually implemented a per-request lifestyle for the BooksContext. Although all DI libraries have out-of-the-box support for scoped lifestyles such as per-request lifestyles, I would argue against using those scoped lifestyles (except perhaps when the library guarantees to throw an exception instead of failing silently). Most libraries do not warn you when you resolve a scoped instance outside the context of an active scope (for instance resolving a per-request instance on a background thread). Some containers will return you a singleton instance, others return you a new instance each time you ask. This is really troublesome because it hides bugs and can cause you many hours trying to debug your application (I speak from experience here).
The simplest and sanest solution is to use Pure DI. With ASP.NET MVC, this is most easily done by deriving from DefaultControllerFactory and overriding GetControllerInstance:
protected override IController GetControllerInstance(
RequestContext requestContext, Type controllerType)
{
if (controllerType == typeof(Test))
return new Test(new Book());
return base.GetControllerInstance(requestContext, controllerType);
}
Then register your new Controller Factory in your Global.asax like this:
ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new MyControllerFactory());
Unfortunately, much documentation will tell you to use IDependencyResolver, or Bastard Injection to deal with Dependency Injection, but these will not make your code more maintainable.
There are lots of more details, including examples of how to properly use Dependency Injection with ASP.NET MVC, in my book.
If you're only interested in Dependency Injection to achieve some level of abstraction, you're definitely not required to use any IoC framework.
If you don't care about scope, lifetime and nested dependencies, you may end up with something as primitive as this:
internal class MyBasicResolver : IDependencyResolver
{
private readonly Dictionary<Type, Type> _services = new Dictionary<Type, Type>()
{
{ typeof(IBook), typeof(Book) }
// more services registrations
};
public object GetService(Type serviceType)
{
return _services.ContainsKey(serviceType) ? Activator.CreateInstance(_services[serviceType]) : null;
}
public IEnumerable<object> GetServices(Type serviceType)
{
yield return GetService(serviceType);
}
}
Then register it as the current Dependency Resolver for MVC:
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new MyBasicResolver());
See MSDN
Ninject and unity provide object container, which contains object wich you have register at startup of the application,
But why you need to use di, Di states that two objects should not depend upon its concreation it should depend upon its abstraction, so if suppose in futere you need to replace Book class to eBook, here both the class has same function but it has diffrunt concreation at that time you need to just your di configuration you dont need to recode the controller for eBook.
I am using unity di in my most projects I didt face any issue which I cant resolve its easy and make practice to use that, dont be afraid for that.
I need to declare an object in MVC app. This object consume memory so I need it to be created once when app start and won't be destroy until recycled. The same instance of the object also should be able accessed across application within controllers.
I have used this object in WCF service by using InstanceContextMode.Single and works great. But how with MVC?
I would implement a Singleton Pattern https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff650316.aspx
If you are using any Dependency injection container then all of them have support for Singleton Instance
As singletons are largely considered an anti-pattern. They make your code hard to test (using mocks and stubs) and create tightly coupled code.
Since this is very bad practice, you are better off using an IoC container (Unity, SimpleIoC, Autofac, etc.) to manage the lifetime of your containers. The Unity 3 IoC container has an ContainerControlledLifetimeManager lifetime manager where objects are created once and the same instance is returned for the lifetime of the container.
In your composition root you could either do (using IMemoryConsumingService interface to avoid tight coupling). Then just inject it into your controllers and services. Example for Unity 3 (other IoC have similar procedure).
MemoryConsumingService service = new MemoryConsumingService();
container.RegisterInstance<IMemoryConsumingService>(service);
or
container.RegisterType<IMemoryConsumingService, MemoryConsumingService(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
Edit:
When you install Unity 3.5 + Unity MVC Bootstraper you are basically ready to go for it.
public class UnityConfig
{
private static Lazy<IUnityContainer> container = new Lazy<IUnityContainer>(() =>
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
RegisterTypes(container);
return container;
});
public static IUnityContainer GetConfiguredContainer()
{
return container.Value;
}
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
container.RegisterType<IDriver, Driver>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
// OR
IDriver driver = new Driver();
container.RegisterInstance<IDriver>(driver);
}
}
Inside the RegisterType method you do your registration (please check out the documentation link below, IoC is to complicated to explain it within an simple answer). The newer nugetpackages get you ready to go, without any further changes (except adding registrations). No need to change the Global.asax as it was required in the early years of Unity.