I've used a fair amount of dependency injection, but I'd like to get input on how to handle information from the user at runtime.
I have a class that connects to a com port. I allow the user to select the com port number. Right now, I have that com port parameter as a constructor argument. The reasoning being that the class cannot function without that information, and it's implementation specific (a mock version of this class wouldn't need a com port).
The alternative is to have a "Start" method that takes in the com port, or have a property that sets the com port. This makes it very compatible with an IoC container, but it doesn't necessarily make sense from the perspective of the class.
It seems like the logical route conflicts with the dependency injection design, but it's because my UI is getting information for a specific type of class.
Other alternatives would include using an IoC container that lets me pass in additional constructor parameters, or just constructing the classes I need at the top level without using dependency injection.
Is there a generally accepted standard pattern for this type of problem?
There are two routes you can take, depending on your needs.
1. Wire the UI directly to your concrete classes
This is the simplest option, but many times perfectly acceptable. While you may have a Domain Model with lots of interfaces and use of DI, the UI constitutes the Composition Root of the object graphs, and you could simply wire up your concrete class here, including your required port number parameter.
The upside is that this approach is simple and easy to understand and implement.
The downside is that you get less flexibility. You will not be able to arbitrarily replace one implementation with another (but then again, you may not need that flexibility).
Even with the UI locked to a concrete implementation, this doesn't mean that the Domain Model itself wouldn't be reusable in other applications.
2. Add an Abstract Factory
The other option is to add another layer of indirection. Instead of having your UI create the class directly, it could use an Abstract Factory to create the instance.
The factory's Create method could take the port number as an input, so this abstraction belongs best in a UI sub-layer.
public abstract class MyFactory
{
public abstract IMyInterface Create(int portNumber);
}
You could then have your DI container wire up an implementation of this factory that uses the port number and passes it as a constructor argument to your real implementation. Other factory implementations may simply ignore the parameter.
The advantage of this approach is that you don't pollute your API (or your concrete implementations), and you still have the flexibility that programming to interfaces give you.
The disadvantage is that it adds yet another layer of indirection.
Most IoC containers have some form of Constructor Injection that would allow your IoC container to pass a mocked COM port into your class for unit testing. That seems like the most clean solution.
I would avoid adding a "Start" method, etc. Its much better practice to (when possible) always have your classes in a valid state, and switching to a parameterless constructor with a start method leaves your class invalid between those calls. Doing this to enable testing is just making your class more difficult in order to test (which should make it nicer).
Related
My understanding is that a facade is used as an alternative to dependency injection. Please correct if I'm mistaken. What is not clear is when one should use one or the other.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of each approach? How should I determine when to use one or the other?
Lastly, why not use both? I can create a facade that references an interface. It seems Sentry 2 is written this way. Is there a best practice?
FACADES
Facades are not an alternative to dependency injection.
Laravel Facade is an implementation of the Service Locator Pattern, creating a clean and beautiful way of accessing objects:
MyClass::doSomething();
This is the PHP syntax for a static methods, but Laravel changes the game and make them non-static behind the scenes, giving you a beautiful, enjoyable and testable way of writing your applications.
DEPENDENCY INJECTION
Dependency Injection is, basically, a way of passing parameters to your constructors and methods while automatically instatiating them.
class MyClass {
private $property;
public function __construct(MyOtherClass $property)
{
/// Here you can use the magic of Dependency Injection
$this->property = $property
/// $property already is an object of MyOtherClass
}
}
A better construction of it would be using Interfaces on your Dependency Injected constructors:
class MyClass {
private $property;
public function __construct(MyInterface $property)
{
/// Here you can use the magic of Dependency Injection
$this->property = $property
/// $property will receive an object of a concrete class that implements MyInterface
/// This class should be defined in Laravel elsewhere, but this is a way of also make
/// your application easy to maintain, because you can swap implementations of your interfaces
/// easily
}
}
But note that in Laravel you can inject classes and interfaces the same way. To inject interfaces you just have to tell it wich one will be this way:
App::bind('MyInterface', 'MyOtherClass');
This will tell Laravel that every time one of your methods needs an instance of MyInterface it should give it one of MyOtherClass.
What happens here is that this constuctor has a "dependency": MyOtherClass, which will be automatically injected by Laravel using the IoC container. So, when you create an instance of MyClass, Laravel automatically will create an instance of MyOtherClass and put it in the variable $class.
Dependency Injection is just an odd jargon developers created to do something as simple as "automatic generation of parameters".
WHEN TO USE ONE OR THE OTHER?
As you can see, they are completely different things, so you won't ever need to decide between them, but you will have to decide where go to with one or the other in different parts of your application.
Use Facades to ease the way you write your code. For example: it's a good practice to create packages for your application modules, so, to create Facades for those packages is also a way to make them seem like a Laravel public class and accessing them using the static syntax.
Use Dependency Injection every time your class needs to use data or processing from another class. It will make your code testable, because you will be able to "inject" a mock of those dependencies into your class and you will be also exercising the single responsibility principle (take a look at the SOLID principles).
Facades, as noted, are intended to simplify a potentially complicated interface.
Facades are still testable
Laravel's implementation goes a step further and allows you to define the base-class that the Facade "points" to.
This gives a developer the ability to "mock" a Facade - by switching the base-class out with a mock object.
In that sense, you can use them and still have testable code. This is where some confusion lies within the PHP community.
DI is often cited as making your code testable - they make mocking class dependencies easy. (Sidenote: Interfaces and DI have other important reasons for existing!)
Facades, on the other hand, are often cited as making testing harder because you can't "simply inject a mock object" into whatever code you're testing. However, as noted, you can in fact "mock" them.
Facade vs DI
This is where people get confused regarding whether Facades are an alternative to DI or not.
In a sense, they both add a dependency to your class - You can either use DI to add a dependency or you can use a Facade directly - FacadeName::method($param);. (Hopefully you are not instantiating any class directly within another :D ).
This does not make Facades an alternative to DI, but instead, within Laravel, does create a situation where you may decide to add class dependencies one of 2 ways - either using DI or by using a Facade. (You can, of course, use other ways. These "2 ways" are just the most-often used "testable way").
Laravel's Facades are an implementation of the Service Locator pattern, not the Facade pattern.
In my opinion you should avoid service locator within your domain, opting to only use it in your service and web transport layers.
http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html#UsingAServiceLocator
I think that in terms of laravel Facades help you keep you code simple and still testable since you can mock facades however might be a bit harder to tell a controllers dependencies if you use facades since they are probably all over the place in your code.
With dependency injection you need to write a bit more code since you need to deal with creating interfaces and services to handle the depenancies however Its a lot more clear later on what a controller depends on since these are clearly mentioned in the controller constructor.
I guess it's a matter of deciding which method you prefer using
Given the following piece of a StructureMap registry
For<ILogger>().Use(LogFactory.CreateLogger());
For<Scheduler>().Use(() => new Scheduler(ObjectFactory.GetInstance<ILogger>()));
...is this a good way of providing an ILogger to the Scheduler? It works - but I'm curious to know if it's a poor way of providing a type that the container is configured to provide, or whether it's my only option given the scenario... the scenario being that the Scheduler type itself has other constructors which I cannot change, nor do I care for - but they are needed, so I need to specify this particular constructor rather than using a straight For<x>().Use<y>();
It would be best if the registered service has exactly one public constructor. This makes it unambiguous what dependencies a service makes and makes it very clear which constructor will be selected by the container, and it allows you to register types using the more flexible Use<T>(), and makes the composition root less likely to be changed when the constructor changed.
However, as you said, in your case you can't change the constructors of that type, so you will have to fall back. There are multiple ways to select the proper constructor with StructureMap, but registering a delegate is the best way, since this gives you compile time support.
As I understand IoC-container is helpful in creation of application-level objects like services and factories. But domain-level objects should be created manually.
Spring's manual tells us: "Typically one does not configure fine-grained domain objects in the container, because it is usually the responsibility of DAOs and business logic to create/load domain objects."
Well. But what if my domain "fine-grained" object depends on some application-level object.
For example I have an UserViewer(User user, UserConstants constants) class.
There user is domain object which cannot be injected, but UserViewer also needs UserConstants which is high-level object injected by IoC-container.
I want to inject UserConstants from the IoC-container, but I also need a transient runtime parameter User here.
What is wrong with the design?
Thanks in advance!
UPDATE
It seems I was not precise enough with my question. What I really need is an example how to do this:
create instance of class UserViewer(User user, UserService service), where user is passed as the parameter and service is injected from IoC.
If I inject UserViewer viewer then how do I pass user to it?
If I create UserViewer viewer manually then how do I pass service to it?
there's nothing wrong with this design. you use Factories for that, which have one leg in the domain, one leg in infrastructure.
You can either write them manually, or have the container do that for you, by things like TypedFactoryFacility in Windsor.
Also when your domain objects come from persistence layer you can plug your container there to inject the services they require (NHibernate can do that).
But what if my domain "fine-grained" object depends on some application-level object?
It is precisely this that is considered bad-practice. I would say the problems could be:
There are tons of these objects, so there can be performance and memory issues.
The POJO style is that they can be used in all environments (persisted in the database, processed in business algorithms and rules, read and set in view technologies, serialized and send over the network). Injecting application-level objects in them could cause the following problems:
In your architecture, you probably have the rule that some (most) application-level objects are usable in some layers, not in others. Because all layers have access to the pojos, the rule would be violated transitively.
When serialized and rebuild in another JVM, what would be the meaning of your application-level objects. They are useless, they must be changed for the local equivalents...
Typically, the pojos that constitute your domain are self-contained. They can have access to other pojos (and many enums), that's all.
In addition to the data, they have methods that implement the details of the business rules or algorithms (remember the OO idea of grouping data and code that work on it ;-) ):
This is especially good when they have inheritance, as this allow to customize a business rule for some pojo by providing a different implementation (differing case without if or switch: remember OO? ;-) ).
Any code that requires access to application-level objects (like accessing the database) is taken out, for example to a Service or Manager. But that code stays high level, thus readable and simple, because the pojos themselves take care of the low level details (and the special cases).
After the fact, you often find out that the pojo methods get reused a lot, and composed in different ways by the Services or Managers. That's a big win on reducing duplication, the methods names provide much needed "meaning", and provide an easier access to developers that are new to a module.
For your update:
create instance of class UserViewer(User user, UserService service), where user is passed as the parameter and service is injected from IoC.
If I inject UserViewer viewer then how do I pass user to it?
If I create UserViewer viewer manually then how do I pass service to it?
In that case, you need a factory method (possibly on a Factory or Locator of yours). It could look at follow, separating the two parts:
public UserViewer createUserViewer(User user) {
UserViewer viewer = instantiateBean(UserViewer.class);
viewer.setUser(user);
return viewer;
}
private <E> E instantiateBean(Class<E> clazz) {
// call the IoC container to create and inject a bean
}
On this AutoFac "Best Practices" page (http://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/BestPractices), they say:
Don't Pass the Container Around
Giving components access to the container, or storing it in a public static property, or making functions like Resolve() available on a global 'IoC' class defeats the purpose of using dependency injection. Such designs have more in common with the Service Locator pattern.
If components have a dependency on the container, look at how they're using the container to retrieve services, and add those services to the component's (dependency injected) constructor arguments instead.
So what would be a better way to have one component "dynamically" instantiate another? Their second paragraph doesn't cover the case where the component that "may" need to be created will depend on the state of the system. Or when component A needs to create X number of component B.
To abstract away the instantiation of another component, you can use the Factory pattern:
public interface IComponentBFactory
{
IComponentB CreateComponentB();
}
public class ComponentA : IComponentA
{
private IComponentBFactory _componentBFactory;
public ComponentA(IComponentBFactory componentBFactory)
{
_componentBFactory = componentBFactory;
}
public void Foo()
{
var componentB = _componentBFactory.CreateComponentB();
...
}
}
Then the implementation can be registered with the IoC container.
A container is one way of assembling an object graph, but it certainly isn't the only way. It is an implementation detail. Keeping the objects free of this knowledge decouples them from infrastructure concerns. It also keeps them from having to know which version of a dependency to resolve.
Autofac actually has some special functionality for exactly this scenario - the details are on the wiki here: http://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/DelegateFactories.
In essence, if A needs to create multiple instances of B, A can take a dependency on Func<B> and Autofac will generate an implementation that returns new Bs out of the container.
The other suggestions above are of course valid - Autofac's approach has a couple of differences:
It avoids the need for a large number of factory interfaces
B (the product of the factory) can still have dependencies injected by the container
Hope this helps!
Nick
An IoC takes the responsibility for determining which version of a dependency a given object should use. This is useful for doing things like creating chains of objects that implement an interface as well as having a dependency on that interface (similar to a chain of command or decorator pattern).
By passing your container, you are putting the onus on the individual object to get the appropriate dependency, so it has to know how to. With typical IoC usage, the object only needs to declare that it has a dependency, not think about selecting between multiple available implementations of that dependency.
Service Locator patterns are more difficult to test and it certainly is more difficult to control dependencies, which may lead to more coupling in your system than you really want.
If you really want something like lazy instantiation you may still opt for the Service Locator style (it doesn't kill you straight away and if you stick to the container's interface it is not too hard to test with some mocking framework). Bear in mind, though that the instantiation of a class that doesn't do much (or anything) in the constructor is immensely cheap.
The container's I have come to know (not autofac so far) will let you modify what dependencies should be injected into which instance depending on the state of the system such that even those decisions can be externalized into the configuration of the container.
This can provide you plenty of flexibility without resorting to implementing interaction with the container based on some state you access in the instance consuming dependencies.
Say I have a class called PermissionManager which should only exist once for my system and basically fulfills the function of managing various permissions for various actions in my application. Now I have some class in my application which needs to be able to check a certain permission in one of its methods. This class's constructor is currently public, i.e. used by API users.
Until a couple of weeks ago, I would have simply had my class call the following pseudo-code somewhere:
PermissionManager.getInstance().isReadPermissionEnabled(this)
But since I have noticed everyone here hating singletons + this kind of coupling, I was wondering what the better solution would be, since the arguments I have read against singletons seem to make sense (not testable, high coupling, etc.).
So should I actually require API users to pass in a PermissionManager instance in the constructor of the class? Even though I only want a single PermissionManager instance to exist for my application?
Or am I going about this all wrong and should have a non-public constructor and a factory somewhere which passes in the instance of PermissionManager for me?
Additional info Note that when I say "Dependency Injection", I'm talking about the DI Pattern...I am not using any DI framework like Guice or Spring. (...yet)
If you are using a dependency-injection framework, then the common way to handle this is to either pass in a PermissionsManager object in the constructor or to have a property of type PermissionsManager that the framework sets for you.
If this is not feasible, then having users get an instance of this class via factory is a good choice. In this case, the factory passes the PermissionManager in to the constructor when it creates the class. In your application start-up, you would create the single PermissionManager first, then create your factory, passing in the PermissionManager.
You are correct that it is normally unwieldy for the clients of a class to know where to find the correct PermissionManager instance and pass it in (or even to care about the fact that your class uses a PermissionManager).
One compromise solution I've seen is to give your class a property of type PermissionManager. If the property has been set (say, in a unit test), you use that instance, otherwise you use the singleton. Something like:
PermissionManager mManager = null;
public PermissionManager Permissions
{
if (mManager == null)
{
return mManager;
}
return PermissionManager.getInstance();
}
Of course, strictly speaking, your PermissionManager should implement some kind of IPermissionManager interface, and that's what your other class should reference so a dummy implementation can be substituted more easily during testing.
You can indeed start by injecting the PermissionManager. This will make your class more testable.
If this causes problems for the users of that class you can have them use a factory method or an abstract factory. Or you can add a parameterless constructor that for them to call that injects the PermissionManager while your tests use another constructor that you can use to mock the PermissionManager.
Decoupling your classes more makes your classes more flexible but it can also make them harder to use. It depends on the situation what you'll need. If you only have one PermissionManager and have no problem testing the classes that use it then there's no reason to use DI. If you want people to be able to add their own PermissionManager implementation then DI is the way to go.
If you are subscribing to the dependency injection way of doing things, whatever classes need your PermissionManager should have it injected as an object instance. The mechanism that controls its instantiation (to enforce the singleton nature) works at a higher level. If you use a dependency injection framework like Guice, it can do the enforcement work. If you are doing your object wiring by hand, dependency injection favors grouping code that does instantiation (new operator work) away from your business logic.
Either way, though, the classic "capital-S" Singleton is generally seen as an anti-pattern in the context of dependency injection.
These posts have been insightful for me in the past:
Using Dependency Injection to Avoid Singletons
How to Think About the "new" Operator with Respect to Unit Testing
So should I actually require API users to pass in a PermissionManager instance in the constructor of the class? Even though I only want a single PermissionManager instance to exist for my application?
Yes, this is all you need to do. Whether a dependency is a singleton / per request / per thread or a factory method is the responsibility of your container and configuration. In the .net world we would ideally have the dependency on an IPermissionsManager interface to further reduce coupling, I assume this is best practice in Java too.
The singleton pattern is not bad by itself, what makes it ugly is the way it's commonly used, as being the requirement of only wanting a single instance of a certain class, which I think it's a big mistake.
In this case I'd make PermissionManager a static class unless for any reason you need it to be an instanciable type.