I know that generally injector should be used only once in all application (on startup). But i have following use case. I inject task implementation for Executor, and then inside that task i have dependency (lets say FileHandler) that has to be instantiated each time. I know the way is to inject provider (lets say FileHandlerProvider) that will return new instance each time requested. The problem is that FileHandler has a lot of dependencies of it own (lets say Parser, OutputPrinter...). Now those also need new instance each time (because implementations could have some state, for example counters, and on next thread run reusing same instance would be a problem). The thing is that after provider is injected the same instance of provider is reused, so new FileHandler is always created with same Parser and OuputPrinter. The solution could be again to inject ParserProvider and OutputPrinterProvider instead of Parser and OuputPrinter in FileHandlerProvider, but thats just not right, it gets too complicated soon, because there are more dependencies. The only simple solution I see now could be to use Injector in FileHandlerProvider, that would return new instance FileHandler (and new instances of dependencies). Or maybe there is another more elegant solution in this situation?
You should just bind FileHandler and its dependencies all with default scope (i.e. no scope). Then inject Provider<FileHandler> and use its get() every time you need a new FileHandler instance. Since FileHandler has no scope, each time get() is called a new instance of FileHandler needs to be created... and since its dependencies also have no scope, a new instance of each of them needs to be created each time as well. It should work just the way you want.
I think the thing that you're (maybe) missing here is that you don't need to write any of these providers yourself... just inject Provider<FileHandler> and Guice will do it all for you.
Edit: Here's a small class I wrote that demonstrates the dependencies of a class getting created new each time an instance of that class is created.
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector();
injector.getInstance(Test.class);
}
#Inject public Test(Provider<FileHandler> fileHandlerProvider) {
FileHandler fileHandler1 = fileHandlerProvider.get();
FileHandler fileHandler2 = fileHandlerProvider.get();
System.out.println("fileHandler1 == fileHandler2? " +
(fileHandler1 == fileHandler2));
System.out.println("fileHandler1.parser == fileHandler2.parser? " +
(fileHandler1.parser == fileHandler2.parser));
System.out.println("fileHandler1.print == fileHandler2.printer? " +
(fileHandler1.printer == fileHandler2.printer));
}
private static class FileHandler {
private final Parser parser;
private final OutputPrinter printer;
#Inject private FileHandler(Parser parser, OutputPrinter printer) {
this.parser = parser;
this.printer = printer;
}
}
private static class Parser {
}
private static class OutputPrinter {
}
}
When run, this code prints:
fileHandler1 == fileHandler2? false
fileHandler1.parser == fileHandler2.parser? false
fileHandler1.print == fileHandler2.printer? false
This shows that not only was a new FileHandler instance created each time, new Parser and OutputPrinter instances were create and injected in to the FileHandler each time as well.
Related
How can I create a Singleton instance in di.dart?
Seems like if I do this:
module = new Module()
..bind(GameRepository)
..bind(MessageFactory)
..bind(Broadcaster);
my GameRepository gets instantiated multiple times if when I do
injector.get(GameRepository)
I tried to do
..bind(GameRepository, toValue: new GameRepository())
and that seems to work, but it's easy because GameRepository has no parameter, but shouldn't there be a way to tell the di framework to bind it as a singleton without requiring me to instantiate it (and maintain its constructor call?)
edit:
#Günter, I do want a Singleton, however in my case I want to use my GameRepository from my redstone.dart resource AND from outside too. So I bind the GameRepository and then do this:
// To use it outside of the resource
injector = new ModuleInjector([modules.getProductionModule()]);
// To use it in redstone
app.addModule(module);
And now I can see that redstone hold a different reference on GameRepository from the one I get when I do injector.get(GameRepository)
I don't know if the question has become too specific though :P
As far as I know DI always returns the same instance, therefore everything is a singleton. If you don't want singletons you can bind a factory.
For more details see https://stackoverflow.com/a/22944185/217408
How about using a factory constructor with the singleton pattern in an implementation or extension of that class
class GameRepositorySingleton extends GameRepository{
static GameRepository _instance;
factory GameRepositorySingleton (A a, B b, ...){
if (_instance == null)
{
_instance = new GameRepository (a, b);
}
return _instance;
}
}
and then you can use it in DI like this
module = new Module()
..bind(GameRepository, toImplementation: GameRepositorySingleton);
To be honest I haven't tried this out. Tell me if it works. You might have to change extends to implements if the editor complains that GameRepository isn't a GameRepositorySingleton.
So I ended up doing this for now. As I need DI outside of redstone for now, I have an injector at top-level. Ideally I could share the injector with Redstone but that doesn't seem to be possible as far as I know. I've opened an issue here. So for now, I think the best way to share a singleton instante between redstone and my code would be something along these lines.
// in my top-level main()
ModuleInjector injector = new ModuleInjector([new Module()..bind(GameRepository)]);
// setup of redstone
GameRepository repo = injector.get(GameRepository);
app.addModule(new Module()..bind(GameRepository, toValue: repo));
// in my redstone resource
#app.Group('/games')
class GamesResource {
GameRepository gameRepository;
Games(this.gameRepository);
}
I'm trying to add Dagger to an existing web application and am running into a design problem.
Currently our Handlers are created in a dispatcher with something like
registerHandler('/login', new LoginHandler(), HttpMethod.POST)
Inside the login handler we might call a function like
Services.loginService.login('username', 'password');
I want to be able to inject the loginService into the handler, but am having trouble figuring out the best approach. There is a really long list of handlers in the dispatcher, and injecting them all as instance variables seems like a large addition of code.
Is there a solution to this type of problem?
Based on your comment about having different services to inject. I would propose next solution.
ServicesProvider:
#Module(injects = {LoginHandler.class, LogoutHandler.class})
public class ServicesProvider {
#Provides #Singleton public LoginService getLoginService() {
return new LoginService();
}
}
LoginHandler.java:
public class LoginHandler extends Handler {
#Inject LoginService loginService;
}
HttpNetwork.java
public class HttpNetwork extends Network {
private ObjectGraph objectGraph = ObjectGraph.create(new ServicesProvider());
public registerHandler(String path, Handler handler, String methodType) {
getObjectGraph().inject(handler);
}
}
There is one week point in this solution - you can't easily change ServiceProvider for test purpose (or any other kind of purpose). But if you inject it also (for example with another object graph or just through constructor) you can fix this situation.
I'm using Ninject in an MVC project and am trying to implement Domain Events following Udi Dahan's pattern http://www.udidahan.com/2009/06/14/domain-events-salvation/
In the extract below, the "Container" is used to resolve all the event-handlers for the particular type of event that has been raised.
My question (& apologies if I am missing something basic) is how to do this with Ninject? In other words:
How does the "Container" get set in this static class?
Once I have a Container (Kernel?) what would be the Ninject syntax to resolve all the event handlers (which I'm assuming I would have to register before-hand in a Service Module)?
I keep reading in posts that only constructor injection should be used and everything recursively get resolved from that, and that accessing the Ninject Kernel is a no-no. So any advice on how to do this will be much appreciated.
Extract from the article
public static class DomainEvents
{
[ThreadStatic] //so that each thread has its own callbacks
private static List<Delegate> actions;
public static IContainer Container { get; set; } //as before
//Registers a callback for the given domain event
public static void Register<T>(Action<T> callback) where T : IDomainEvent
{
if (actions == null)
actions = new List<Delegate>();
actions.Add(callback);
}
//Clears callbacks passed to Register on the current thread
public static void ClearCallbacks ()
{
actions = null;
}
//Raises the given domain event
public static void Raise<T>(T args) where T : IDomainEvent
{
if (Container != null)
foreach(var handler in Container.ResolveAll<Handles<T>>())
handler.Handle(args);
if (actions != null)
foreach (var action in actions)
if (action is Action<T>)
((Action<T>)action)(args);
}
}
How does the "Container" get set in this static class?
You will have to set it during application startup:
DomainEvents.Container = kernel;
what would be the Ninject syntax to resolve all the event handlers:
You can do it like this, for instance:
Container.Get<IEnumerable<Handles<T>>>())
Udi's static DomainEvents class is an implementation of the Ambient Context anti-pattern (see DI PP&P chapter 5.3). In this case I would rather use dependency injection to inject an IDomainEvents abstraction into code that needs it, instead of letting code depend on a static instance.
The problem however is that your domain objects will need a dependency on the IDomainEvents and constructor injection is (probably) not possible. The trick is to use method injection in that case.
In other words, use constructor injection to inject the IDomainEvents into command handlers or services (or what ever you call your business logic that uses the methods on your domain objects) and pass that dependency into the domain object when calling a method that needs it (method injection).
Let's say we have class:
public class WithDependencies
{
public WithDependencies(IAmDependencyOne first, IAmDependencyTwo second)
// ...
}
Now the question. How do you create objects of WithDependencies class in an application?
I know there are many ways.
new WithDependencies(new DependencyOne(), new DependencyTwo());
new WithDependencies(IoC.Resolve(IDependencyOne), IoC.Resolve(IDependencyTwo());
// register IDependencyOne, IDependencyTwo implementations at app start
IoC.Resolve(WithDependencies);
// register IDependencyOne, IDependencyTwo implementations at app start
// isolate ourselves from concrete IoC Container
MyCustomWithDependenciesFactory.Create();
and so on...
What do you think is the way to do it?
Edit:
Because I don't get answers or I don't understand them I'll try to ask again. Let's say that on some event (button, timer, whatever) I need new object WithDependencies(). How do I create it? Assume IoC container is already configured.
It depends on the context, so it's impossible to provide a single answer. Conceptually you'd be doing something like this from the Composition Root:
var wd = new WithDependencies(new DependencyOne(), new DependencyTwo());
However, even in the absence of a DI Container, the above code isn't always unambiguously the correct answer. In some cases, you might want to share the same dependency among several consumers, like this:
var dep1 = new DependencyOne();
var wd = new WithDependencies(dep1, new DependencyTwo());
var another = AnotherWithDependencies(dep1, new DependencyThree());
In other cases, you might not want to share dependencies, in which case the first option is more correct.
This is just a small glimpse of an entire dimension of DI concerned with Lifetime Management. Many DI Containers can take care of that for you, which is one excellent argument to prefer a DI Container over Poor Man's DI.
Once you start using a DI Container, you should follow the Register Resolve Release pattern when resolving types, letting Auto-wiring take care of the actual composition:
var wd = container.Resolve<WithDependencies>();
The above example assumes that the container is already correctly configured.
If you need to create a dependency which has its own dependencies, you can either A) do it yourself, or B) ask something else to do it for you. Option A negates the benefits of dependency injection (decoupling, etc.), so I would say option B is a better starting point. Now, we have chosen to use the factory pattern, no matter whether it takes the form of a service locator (i.e. IoC.Resolve), a static factory, or an instance factory. The point is that we have delegated that responsibility to an external authority.
There are a number of trade-offs required for static accessors. (I went over them in another answer, so I won't repeat them here.) In order to avoid introducing a dependency on the infrastructure or the container, a solid option is to accept a factory for creating WithDependencies when we need an instance somewhere else:
public class NeedsWithDependencies
{
private readonly IWithDependenciesFactory _withDependenciesFactory;
public NeedsWithDependencies(IWithDependenciesFactory withDependenciesFactory)
{
_withDependenciesFactory = withDependenciesFactory;
}
public void Foo()
{
var withDependencies = _withDependenciesFactory.Create();
...Use the instance...
}
}
Next, we can create a container-specific implementation of the factory:
public class WithDependenciesFactory : IWithDependenciesFactory
{
private readonly IContainer _container;
public WithDependenciesFactory(IContainer container)
{
_container = container
}
public WithDependencies Create()
{
return _container.Resolve<WithDependencies>();
}
}
Now NeedsWithDependencies is completely isolated from any knowledge of how WithDependencies gets created; it also exposes all its dependencies in its constructor, instead of hiding dependencies on static accessors, making it easy to reuse and test.
Defining all those factories can get a little cumbersome, though. I like Autofac's factory relationship type, which will detect parameters of the form Func<TDependency> and automatically inject a function which serves the same purpose as the hand-coded factory above:
public class NeedsWithDependencies
{
private readonly Func<WithDependencies> _withDependenciesFactory;
public NeedsWithDependencies(Func<WithDependencies> withDependenciesFactory)
{
_withDependenciesFactory = withDependenciesFactory;
}
public void Foo()
{
var withDependencies = _withDependenciesFactory();
...Use the instance...
}
}
It also works great with runtime parameters:
public class NeedsWithDependencies
{
private readonly Func<int, WithDependencies> _withDependenciesFactory;
public NeedsWithDependencies(Func<int, WithDependencies> withDependenciesFactory)
{
_withDependenciesFactory = withDependenciesFactory;
}
public void Foo(int x)
{
var withDependencies = _withDependenciesFactory(x);
...Use the instance...
}
}
Sometimes I try to get rid of factories or at least not depend directly on them, so Dependency Injection (without factories) is useful of course.
Therefore I use Google Juice, cause its a small little framework using Java Annotations and you can quickly change your injections / dependencies. Just take a look at it:
http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/
I have been doing my first Test Driven Development project recently and have been learning Ninject and MOQ. This is my first attempt at all this. I've found the TDD approach has been thought provoking, and Ninject and MOQ have been great. The project I am working on has not particularly been the best fit for Ninject as it is a highly configurable C# program that is designed to test the use of a web service interface.
I have broken it up into modules and have interfaces all over the shop, but I am still finding that I am having to use lots of constructor arguments when getting an implementation of a service from the Ninject kernel. For example;
In my Ninject module;
Bind<IDirEnum>().To<DirEnum>()
My DirEnum class;
public class DirEnum : IDirEnum
{
public DirEnum(string filePath, string fileFilter,
bool includeSubDirs)
{
....
In my Configurator class (this is the main entry point) that hooks all the services together;
class Configurator
{
public ConfigureServices(string[] args)
{
ArgParser argParser = new ArgParser(args);
IDirEnum dirEnum = kernel.Get<IDirEnum>(
new ConstructorArgument("filePath", argParser.filePath),
new ConstructorArgument("fileFilter", argParser.fileFilter),
new ConstructorArgument("includeSubDirs", argParser.subDirs)
);
filePath, fileFilter and includeSubDirs are command line options to the program. So far so good. However, being a conscientious kind of guy, I have a test covering this bit of code. I'd like to use a MOQ object. I have created a Ninject module for my tests;
public class TestNinjectModule : NinjectModule
{
internal IDirEnum mockDirEnum {set;get};
Bind<IDirEnum>().ToConstant(mockDirEnum);
}
And in my test I use it like this;
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
// Arrange
TestNinjectModule testmodule = new TestNinjectModule();
Mock<IDirEnum> mockDirEnum = new Mock<IDirEnum>();
testModule.mockDirEnum = mockDirEnum;
// Act
Configurator configurator = new Configurator();
configurator.ConfigureServices();
// Assert
here lies my problem! How do I test what values were passed to the
constructor arguments???
So the above shows my problem. How can I test what arguments were passed to the ConstructorArguments of the mock object? My guess is that Ninject is dispensing of the ConstuctorArguments in this case as the Bind does not require them? Can I test this with a MOQ object or do I need to hand code a mock object that implements DirEnum and accepts and 'records' the constructor arguments?
n.b. this code is 'example' code, i.e. I have not reproduced my code verbatim, but I think I have expressed enough to hopefully convey the issues? If you need more context, please ask!
Thanks for looking. Be gentle, this is my first time ;-)
Jim
There are a few problems with the way you designed your application. First of all, you are calling the Ninject kernel directly from within your code. This is called the Service Locator pattern and it is considered an anti-pattern. It makes testing your application much harder and you are already experiencing this. You are trying to mock the Ninject container in your unit test, which complicates things tremendously.
Next, you are injecting primitive types (string, bool) in the constructor of your DirEnum type. I like how MNrydengren states it in the comments:
take "compile-time" dependencies
through constructor parameters and
"run-time" dependencies through method
parameters
It's hard for me to guess what that class should do, but since you are injecting these variables that change at run-time into the DirEnum constructor, you end up with a hard to test application.
There are multiple ways to fix this. Two that come in mind are the use of method injection and the use of a factory. Which one is feasible is up to you.
Using method injection, your Configurator class will look like this:
class Configurator
{
private readonly IDirEnum dirEnum;
// Injecting IDirEnum through the constructor
public Configurator(IDirEnum dirEnum)
{
this.dirEnum = dirEnum;
}
public ConfigureServices(string[] args)
{
var parser = new ArgParser(args);
// Inject the arguments into a method
this.dirEnum.SomeOperation(
argParser.filePath
argParser.fileFilter
argParser.subDirs);
}
}
Using a factory, you would need to define a factory that knows how to create new IDirEnum types:
interface IDirEnumFactory
{
IDirEnum CreateDirEnum(string filePath, string fileFilter,
bool includeSubDirs);
}
Your Configuration class can now depend on the IDirEnumFactory interface:
class Configurator
{
private readonly IDirEnumFactory dirFactory;
// Injecting the factory through the constructor
public Configurator(IDirEnumFactory dirFactory)
{
this.dirFactory = dirFactory;
}
public ConfigureServices(string[] args)
{
var parser = new ArgParser(args);
// Creating a new IDirEnum using the factory
var dirEnum = this.dirFactory.CreateDirEnum(
parser.filePath
parser.fileFilter
parser.subDirs);
}
}
See how in both examples the dependencies get injected into the Configurator class. This is called the Dependency Injection pattern, opposed to the Service Locator pattern, where the Configurator asks for its dependencies by calling into the Ninject kernel.
Now, since your Configurator is completely free from any IoC container what so ever, you can now easily test this class, by injecting a mocked version of the dependency it expects.
What is left is to configure the Ninject container in the top of your application (in DI terminology: the composition root). With the method injection example, your container configuration would stay the same, with the factory example, you will need to replace the Bind<IDirEnum>().To<DirEnum>() line with something as follows:
public static void Bootstrap()
{
kernel.Bind<IDirEnumFactory>().To<DirEnumFactory>();
}
Of course, you will need to create the DirEnumFactory:
class DirEnumFactory : IDirEnumFactory
{
IDirEnum CreateDirEnum(string filePath, string fileFilter,
bool includeSubDirs)
{
return new DirEnum(filePath, fileFilter, includeSubDirs);
}
}
WARNING: Do note that factory abstractions are in most cases not the best design, as explained here.
The last thing you need to do is to create a new Configurator instance. You can simply do this as follows:
public static Configurator CreateConfigurator()
{
return kernel.Get<Configurator>();
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Bootstrap():
var configurator = CreateConfigurator();
configurator.ConfigureServices(args);
}
Here we call the kernel. Although calling the container directly should be prevented, there will always at least be one place in your application where you call the container, simply because it must wire everything up. However, we try to minimize the number of times the container is called directly, because it improves -among other things- the testability of our code.
See how I didn't really answer your question, but showed a way to work around the problem very effectively.
You might still want to test your DI configuration. That's very valid IMO. I do this in my applications. But for this, you often don't need the DI container, or even if your do, this doesn't mean that all your tests should have a dependency on the container. This relationship should only exist for the tests that test the DI configuration itself. Here is a test:
[TestMethod]
public void DependencyConfiguration_IsConfiguredCorrectly()
{
// Arrange
Program.Bootstrap();
// Act
var configurator = Program.CreateConfigurator();
// Assert
Assert.IsNotNull(configurator);
}
This test indirectly depends on Ninject and it will fail when Ninject is not able to construct a new Configurator instance. When you keep your constructors clean from any logic and only use it for storing the taken dependencies in private fields, you can run this, without the risk of calling out to a database, web service or what so ever.
I hope this helps.