I'm fairly across the concept of IOC containers, however I am having a little bit of difficulty in understanding how I would use one in the context of my application.
I am building an application that will have an MVC web front end and also a WCF service for outside applications to be built upon.
My question is, do I have to setup an IOC such as Windsor for both, or is there a way to setup them up so that they share the same container?
I'm assuming the MVC application and WCF services are separate applications. That is to say, they are a separate codebase, hosted in separate IIS sites, etc. If that is the case, then you will likely need separate containers unless you do something like putting your container in a shared assembly that both the WCF and MVC applications reference. This would really only be advantagous if the two applications both have the same dependencies.
Depending on the size of the site and service, you might have IOC in both projects, but they can't really share the same container. Adding IOC to MVC is fairly straight forward, but it's considerable more tricky to add to WCF. If you'd like to add IOC to your WCF service, I'd suggest using something like CommonServiceFactory, which handles all of the plumbing for you. It can be a bit tricky to setup, because it relies on the CommonServiceLibrary abstraction, rather than on Windsor itself - but once you get up and rolling it's really easy to use.
Related
I am building an ASP.NET MVC 5 application using the repository and service layer design patterns. I have used unity to inject my services into my controllers.
This works nicely and until now I have not had a need to consider instantiating any objects requiring injection of interfaces outside my controllers. However I have a need for this when configuring my application startup to setup some users in the database.
For this I wanted to user my UsersService that I've built. And it occurred to me as the application grows there will surely be other occasions when I'll want to do the same, such as calling a service from within another service.
I see that I can instantiate a Unity container and call resolve on it to get my new instance of a service:
IProductService productService = container.Resolve<IProductService>();
However this kinda smells to me, having the container leaked all over my application seems like an anti pattern. So is there a better way to do this?
Unity and other dependency injection containers automatically do this. When you inject a service into a controller, it will automatically resolve the entire dependency graph of that service. Not only can you resolve dependencies of the service and its dependencies, you should inject dependencies into the service that needs them instead of the controller.
Any class (including the controller) that has more than a handful of dependencies is a code smell that you are violating the Single Responsibility Principle, and you most likely should refactor to aggregate services.
And yes, injecting the container to any point outside of the composition root is an anti-pattern called a service locator.
As for injecting services outside of the controller, it is important to distinguish between injectables and runtime data. For example, some try to inject services into DTO objects, attributes, static classes/extension methods, and other places where it is anti-pattern for services to be injected. For these situations, it is important to properly assess the situation and refactor toward a DI-friendly solution - favoring constructor injection over other alternatives and considering a service locator as a last resort. For example, if you are trying to make an extension method with a dependent service, most likely you have some functionality that itself should be a non-static service, DTOs should never be created from a DI container, and you may have to make use of more than one extension point in MVC where you inject the container within the composition root of the application, which does not constitute a service locator.
Is it worth it? Usually. What is gained? You gain the ability to change the application much more quickly than if you have a tightly-coupled application in ways that the designer of the application may not have even anticipated. So the extra cost of ensuring the application is loosely-coupled is usually more than recouped in ongoing maintenance of the project. As a side benefit, you gain the ability to easily unit-test each component independent of the others.
I have read through the SimpleInjector documentation a few times. But have a few questions.
Context:
3 tier app (presentation (mvc + api controllers), service (business logic), data (repositories, entities, etc)
Unit of Work is a thin wrapper around EF's DbContext
my DbContext and Unit of Work are registered PerWebRequest, using
RegisterWebApiRequest causes an exception, because the Unit of Work is used
outside of Web API requests.
my MVC and Api controllers registered using RegisterWebApiControllers(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration) and RegisterMvcControllers(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly())
Each controller has one or more services injected into it.
Each service has one or more repositories injected into it.
A service may also have another service injected into it.
I want the same Unit Of Work/DbContext to exist in all my services/repositories.
Questions:
Because I am using services in my MVC controllers as well as API controllers; does that mean I can not use RegisterWebApiRequest in place of RegisterPerWebRequest?
none of my services, repositories, etc, maintain any state, I would get the same functionality using PerWebRequest as Transient; is there any advantage to using PerWebRequest over Transient?
Please read the following q/a: How to configure simple injector container and lifestylse in a MVC web app with WebAPI, WCF, SignalR and Background Tasks. The answer explains that:
Putting your Web API in the same project as your MVC controllers is a bad idea from an architectural perspective.
But if you want to do this, you can use the WebRequestLifestyle in both type of applications. The WebApiRequestLifestyle is meant as lifestyle that works for Web API for both IIS and self-hosted environments, but since you placed the Web API controllers in the same project, you are clearly only interested in IIS-hosted; in that case the WebRequestLifestyle will do just fine.
Because I am using services in my MVC controllers as well as API controllers; does that mean I can not use RegisterWebApiRequest in place of RegisterPerWebRequest?
Both lifestyles use a different way of caching. The WebRequestLifestyle uses the HttpContext.Current.Items dictionary to store its SimpleInjector.Scope instance, while the WebApiRequestLifestyle uses the CallContext class to store the Scope during the lifetime of a single asynchronous operation.
Just as the WebRequestLifestyle can be used while resolving Web API controllers, you can use the WebApiRequestLifestyle (or the underlying ExecutionContextScopeLifestyle) for MVC controllers as well. But if you want this, you will create your own IDependencyResolver implementation for MVC that will explicitly start and end an ExecutionContextScope. The absense of a Scope stored in the CallContext is the reason resolving MVC controllers fails when registering services using the WebApiRequestLifestyle. But while it's possible to use the WebApiRequestLifestyle in MVC, the otherway around is much easier, since no custom code is required.
none of my services, repositories, etc, maintain any state, I would get the same functionality using PerWebRequest as Transient; is there any advantage to using PerWebRequest over Transient?
If services don't have state, it doesn't matter what lifestyle they have. The only restriction is that they have dependencies that have a lifestyle that is equal to or longer than their own. Violating this restriction is called Captive Dependencies and can cause all kinds of trouble. Because captive dependencies are bad, Simple Injector v3 checks and prevents this for you.
Although you can probably make all objects in your configuration scoped (non-transient), making them transient is usually easier to configure, and might result in better performance (although you will probably never notice the difference in real life).
After reading "Dependency Injection in .NET" by Mark Seemann I stay away from the Service Locator which is an anti-pattern.
Upon reading the release notes on MVC 4 I see:
Improved Inversion of Control (IoC) via DependencyResolver: Web API
now uses the service locator pattern implemented by MVC’s dependency
resolver to obtain instances for many different facilities.
Thus I'm left curious and confused why Microsoft would use a service locator in 2012.
That's an implementation detail that you shouldn't care about. The important thing is that now that the Web API uses the DependencyResolver to resolve dependencies for many different facilities, you will be able to use a real dependency injection whenever you want to plug into those facilities. So in your code you will be using a real dependency injection. If Microsoft didn't use the DependencyResolver then it would have been you that must have used it (as a service locator anti-pattern) in your code in order to resolve dependencies when you want to implement some custom functionality. This would have been bad for you. Now it's bad for Microsoft but you don't care about them.
Thus I'm left curious and confused why Microsoft would use a service locator in 2012.
Because designing a framework is not the same as designing an application using a framework. There are some different things to take into consideration when designing a reusable framework such as ASP.NET MVC rather than just what's written in the books. Some example is to design the framework in such a way that a person using this framework will be able to take advantage of the best practices written in the books in his code using this framework.
As Darin points out, ASP.NET MVC 4 is a Framework and is container agnostic. That's why it provides a service locator in the form of IDependencyResolver. This allows anyone to plug in their container of choice.
However, I wouldn't call this an anti pattern. This allows you to use the container of your choice, but it doesn't force you the application developer to use service location. If the framework forced the developer to use Service Location, then I would call it an anti-pattern. But the developer who builds an ASP.NET MVC application is free to use DI via constructor injection, property setup, or service location. It's their choice.
Look at all the ASP.NET MVC examples of dependency injection published by me or the ASP.NET MVC team. In pretty much all cases, they're using constructor injection. They're not using service location.
In fact, most of the ASP.NET MVC source code itself doesn't use service location to retrieve dependencies. There's a few key places where the MVC calls into the service locator for legacy APIs and such. But that's about it.
My ASP.NET MVC 2 controllers are currently instantiating service objects in their constructors by passing repository instances that are instantiated by Castle Windsor. I have unit tests that call the controller actions after passing Moq instances of the repositories to the controller's constructor.
I want to allow a third-party UI to access these service objects through WCF.
It occurred to me that converting my existing Service layer into Web services or even adding a new Web service layer between the UI and the existing Service layer will break my unit tests unless I find a way to bridge that gap.
I was trying to work out a solution where my UI was coded against an interface of the service layer (it already is) and I could use DI to pass the Web service implementation at run-time and pass the existing implementation during unit testing. The Web service implentation would simply call the existing implementation.
Questions:
Is such an approach advisable / possible?
Are there any examples of this in a tutorial or open source project?
EDIT:
I believe I have a workable solution now thanks to the suggestions below. I created a WCF Service Application that uses the existing service interfaces from my domain model. The WCF implementation is a class where the constructor takes repository instances from Ninject's WCF extension and creates an instance of the service from the domain model. Each method/function in WCF simply calls the same method/function from the existing service layer.
There were some caveats. For example, I can no longer pass a reference to my ASP.NET MVC ModelState when I create the service in the controller (actually, I use Ninject to create an instance of the WCF service and supply that to the controller's constructor). The reason is that WCF is a messaging platform - changes must be explicitly communicated back with each call (i.e. my validation errors are now communicated back as reference parameters on individual functions/methods).
I also had to add some serialization/servicemodel references to my formerly POCO Core project.
Also, I switched from Castle to Ninject because Castle's WCF solution has a maturity level of low and I wasn't comfortable using that at this time.
Can you explain in more detail why your tests would break?
I do this type of development all the time. Services as classes => services as WCF services.
Your tests shouldn't break. A WCF Service is almost 100% contract, the underlying business code and logic shouldn't have to change.
Check out the Web Services Software Factory created by the Patterns & Practices team. It is a good way to structure your services into contract projects (data, message, service) and "business code". Once you get a better understanding of how to structure your code, you can refactor their style to something that fits you a little better. Their example tends to separate everything into lots of VS projects, which can be a little overkill for most shops. Example, I don't see many shops sharing data contracts across projects. Yes, in a perfect world, you should probably share a lot os types (like address) across projects, but I don't see it done very often. So, I tend put all my contract stuff in one VS project.
If your services are already defined as interfaces then you've got a head start.
Pass the services into the controllers as constructor dependencies, rather than the repositories. Let your DI container A) provide the repositories to the services, and B) provide the services to the controllers.
If you want to stand up your service layer as wcf services to be accessed by other applications, you'll want to use the wcf service factory to pull the concrete service implementations out of your DI container. Here's an example with windsor, it should be easy to adapt to whatever container you use.
At this point you can modify your website to either A) continue to invoke the services directly, or B) have them call back to the web services using service clients. There are pros and cons to both methods.
I'm a little new to DI containers like StructureMap and I've been using it for a short time with asp.net mvc applications. Now I'm splitting my architecture that will have a WCF service layer and a sort of consumers like ASP.NET MVC app, Silverlight App, And Winfors/WPF App. When using SM with asp.net mvc I've been initializing the IOC by the app startup of the asp.net mvc, now, using for many project I can't think a good place where the IOC config should be located.
I want to make DI in the services layer too(injecting Repositories).
In this scenario, where I do load my IOC config and how I'll use across the projects(like the controller factory is needed only in the asp.net mvc app)?
You create and configure a container per application.
If you have an ASP.NET MVC site, you create and configure a container instance in Global.asax.
In a WCF service you can write a custom ServiceHostFactory that spins up a custom ServiceHost that again attaches an appropriate IInstanceProvider that uses a container instance to wire up the WCF service. That sounds complicated, and it definitely is more complicated than it ought to be. I have previously touched on this subject in a completely different context, but this blog post should give you some hints - particularly if you keep in mind that delegates are anonymous interfaces.