Are they the same thing? Just finished to watch Rob Connery's Storefront tutorial and they seem to be similar techinques. I mean, when I implement a DAL object I have the GetStuff, Add/Delete etc methods and I always write the interface first so that I can switch db later.
Am I confusing things?
You're definitely not the one who confuses things. :-)
I think the answer to the question depends on how much of a purist you want to be.
If you want a strict DDD point of view, that will take you down one path. If you look at the repository as a pattern that has helped us standardize the interface of the layer that separates between the services and the database it will take you down another.
The repository from my perspective is just a clearly specified layer of access to data.Or in other words a standardized way to implement your Data Access Layer. There are some differences between different repository implementations, but the concept is the same.
Some people will put more DDD constraints on the repository while others will use the repository as a convenient mediator between the database and the service layer. A repository like a DAL isolates the service layer from data access specifics.
One implementation issue that seems to make them different, is that a repository is often created with methods that take a specification. The repository will return data that satisfies that specification. Most traditional DALs that I have seen, will have a larger set of methods where the method will take any number of parameters. While this may sound like a small difference, it is a big issue when you enter the realms of Linq and Expressions.
Our default repository interface looks like this:
public interface IRepository : IDisposable
{
T[] GetAll<T>();
T[] GetAll<T>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> filter);
T GetSingle<T>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> filter);
T GetSingle<T>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> filter, List<Expression<Func<T, object>>> subSelectors);
void Delete<T>(T entity);
void Add<T>(T entity);
int SaveChanges();
DbTransaction BeginTransaction();
}
Is this a DAL or a repository? In this case I guess its both.
Kim
A repository is a pattern that can be applied in many different ways, while the data access layer has a very clear responsibility: the DAL must know how to connect to your data storage to perform CRUD operations.
A repository can be a DAL, but it can also sit in front of the DAL and act as a bridge between the business object layer and the data layer. Which implementation is used is going to vary from project to project.
One large difference is that a DAO is a generic way to deal with persistence for any entity in your domain. A repository on the other hand only deals with aggregate roots.
I was looking for an answer to a similar question and agree with the two highest-ranked answers. Trying to clarify this for myself, I found that if Specifications, which go hand-in-hand with the Repository pattern, are implemented as first-class members of the domain model, then I can
reuse Specification definitions with different parameters,
manipulate existing Specification instances' parameters (e.g. to specialize),
combine them,
perform business logic on them without ever having to do any database access,
and, of course, unit-test them independent of actual Repository implementations.
I may even go so far and state that unless the Repository pattern is used together with the Specification pattern, it's not really "Repository," but a DAL. A contrived example in pseudo-code:
specification100 = new AccountHasMoreOrdersThan(100)
specification200 = new AccountHasMoreOrdersThan(200)
assert that specification200.isSpecialCaseOf(specification100)
specificationAge = new AccountIsOlderThan('2000-01-01')
combinedSpec = new CompositeSpecification(
SpecificationOperator.And, specification200, specificationAge)
for each account in Repository<Account>.GetAllSatisfying(combinedSpec)
assert that account.Created < '2000-01-01'
assert that account.Orders.Count > 200
See Fowler's Specification Essay for details (that's what I based the above on).
A DAL would have specialized methods like
IoCManager.InstanceFor<IAccountDAO>()
.GetAccountsWithAtLeastOrdersAndCreatedBefore(200, '2000-01-01')
You can see how this can quickly become cumbersome, especially since you have to define each of the DAL/DAO interfaces with this approach and implement the DAL query method.
In .NET, LINQ queries can be one way to implement specifications, but combining Specification (expressions) may not be as smooth as with a home-grown solution. Some ideas for that are described in this SO Question.
My personal opinion is that it is all about mapping, see: http://www.martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/repository.html. So the output/input from the repository are domain objects, which on the DAL could be anything. For me that is an important addition/restriction, as you can add a repository implementation for a database/service/whatever with a different layout, and you have a clear place to concentrate on doing the mapping. If you were not to use that restriction and have the mapping elsewhere, then having different ways to represent data can impact the code in places it shouldn't be changing.
It's all about interpretation and context. They can be very similar or indeed very different, but as long as the solution does the job, what is in a name!
In the external world (i.e. client code) repository is same as DAL, except:
(1) it's insert/update/delete methods is restricted to have the data container object as the parameter.
(2) for read operation it may take simple specification like a DAL (for instance GetByPK) or advanced specification.
Internally it works with a Data Mapper Layer (for instance entity framework context etc) to perform the actual CRUD operation.
What Repository pattern doesn't mean:-
Also, I've seen people often get confused to have a separate Save method as the repository pattern sample implementation besides the Insert/Update/Delete methods which commits all the in-memory changes performed by insert/update/delete methods to database. We can have a Save method definitely in a repository, but that is not the responsibility of repository to isolate in-memory CUD (Create, Update, Delete) and persistence methods (that performs the actual write/change operation in database), but the responsibility of Unit Of Work pattern.
Hope this helps!
Repository is a pattern, this is a way to implement the things in standardized way to reuse the code as we can.
Advantage of using repository pattern is to mock your data access layer, so that you can test your business layer code without calling DAL code. There are other big advantages but this seems to be very vital to me.
From what I understand they can mean basically the same thing - but the naming varies based on context.
For example, you might have a Dal/Dao class that implements an IRepository interface.
Dal/Dao is a data layer term; the higher tiers of your application think in terms of Repositories.
So in most of the (simple) cases DAO is an implementation of Repository?
As far as I understand,it seems that DAO deals precisely with db access (CRUD - No selects though?!) while Repository allows you to abstract the whole data access,perhaps being a facade for multiple DAO (maybe different data sources).
Am I on the right path?
One could argue that a "repository" is a specific class and a "DAL" is the entire layer consisting of the repositories, DTOs, utility classes, and anything else that is required.
Related
Our domain model is very anemic right now. Our entities are mostly empty shells, almost purely designed for holding values and navigating to collections.
We are using EF 4.1 code-first ORM, and the design so far has been to shield our novice developers against the dreaded "LINQ to Entities cannot translate blablabla to a store expression" exception when querying against the context during early iterations.
We have various aggregate root repository interfaces over EF. However some blocks of code in the impls seems like they should be the domain's responsibility. As long as the repository interface is declared in the domain, and the impl is in the infrastructure (dependency injected), is it considered bad design to pass a repository interface as an argument to a method on an entity (or other domain) class?
For example, would this be bad?
public class EntityAbc {
public void SaveTo(IEntityAbcRepository repos) {...}
public void DeleteFrom(IEntityAbcRepository repos) {...}
}
What if a particular entity needed access to other aggregate root repositories? Would this be ok or not, and why?
public void Save() {
var abcRepos = DependencyInjector.Current.GetService<IEntityAbcRepository>();
var xyzRepos = DependencyInjector.Current.GetService<IEntityXyzRepository>();
// work with repositories
}
Update 1
I did not mention moving code to an application layer because I consider some of the code that uses IEntityAbcRepository to involve business rule enforcement. The repository impl should be as vanilla as possible, right? Its main responsibility should just be a simple abstraction over the ORM, allowing you to find / add / update / delete entities. Wrong?
Also, this question applies to methods on other non-entity domain classes -- factories, services, whatever pattern may be appropriate. Point being, I'm asking the question about any method on a domain class, not just an entity class. #Eranga, this is one place where you can use constructor injection because factories & services are not part of the ORM.
The application layer could then coordinate flow by injecting a repository impl into its constructor, and passing it as an argument to a domain service or factory. Is this bad practice?
Update 2
Adding another clarification here. What if the domain only needs access to the IEntityAbcRepository in order to execute its Find() method(s)? In the example above, the SaveTo and DeleteFrom methods would not invoke any add / update / delete methods on the repository interface.
So far we've combined the find / add / update / delete methods on a single aggregate root repository interface for simplicity. But I suppose there's nothing stopping us from separating them out into 2 interfaces, like so:
IEntityAbcReadRepository <-- defines all find method signatures
IEntityAbcWriteRepository <-- defines all add / update / delete method sigs
In this case, would it be bad practice to pass IEntityAbcReadRepository as a parameter to a domain method?
Your first approach is better compared to the second approach which uses "Service Locator" pattern. Dependencies are more obvious in the first approach.
Here are some links that explains why "Service Locator" is a bad choice
Is it bad to use servicelocation instead of constructor injection
...
Singleton Vs ServiceLocator
Say no to ServiceLocator
Both of these solutions stem from the fact that EF does not allow you to use constructor injection. However you can use property injection as explained in this answer. But that does not guarantee that mandatory dependencies are present.
So your first approach is the better solution.
Short answer: Yes!
Long answer:
Consider creating an AbcService in your application service layer. This service layer sits between your domain and your infrastructure. You can inject as many repositories into AbcService as you want. Then let the service handle SaveTo and DeleteFrom.
SaveTo and DeleteFrom, unless you are saving to and deleting from another entity, i.e. no data access is involved, are methods that sound like they shouldn't be on a domain entity, IMO.
Having persistence logic in your domain entities is IMO bad design in the first place. Good separation of concerns should mean that domain/business logic is separated from persistence logic, so your domain classes should be persistence ignorant.
Previous Entity Framwork versions might not have allowed such a separation but I think most recent versions solved that problem. I'm not that familiar with EF though, so I might be wrong.
With that said, where can you put methods such as Save() and Delete() ?
If you want to add to/remove your entity from its repository, Repository.Add() and Repository.Remove() are good choices. A repository basically serves as an illusion of an in-memory collection of your entities, so it makes sense for it to behave just like a collection or a list with the appropriate methods.
If you want to persist changes made to an existing entity, there are other ways to do that. You could have a Repository.Save() method but some consider it bad practice. Oftentimes the changes are part of a higher level operation handled in a transaction-like context such as a Unit of Work, in that case you can let the operation persist all the objects in its scope when it finishes. For instance, if you use an Open Session in View approach for your web application, changes are automatically persisted when the request ends.
Or you can rely on an ad-hoc call of your ORM's Save() method for your particular entity which hopefully shouldn't be grafted onto the entity code itself (with NHibernate, for instance, it's available at runtime on the proxied entity).
[Update]
Putting that in perspective with your subsequent questions (though I'm not sure I understand all of them well) :
I see no value in splitting your repository into a ReadRepository and a WriteRepository. In DDD, a repository's responsibility is clearly to provide a collection to query from as well as add to or remove from. It's still quite cohesive that way.
It's not an entity's responsibility to fiddle with its own persistence, so it shouldn't be aware of its own repository for that precise purpose. Otherwise, it's pretty rare that an entity rightfully needs to have knowledge of its own repository (usually it means that the entity has a relationship to another entity of the same type, like parent/child, and you want to get the other entity from the repository)
However, entities and other domain objects obviously do need to obtain references to other entities at times. In that case, try to get these references through traversal of other objects within the boundary of your aggregate first before looking for a repository. If you absolutely need a repository to get the object you want, it's a good idea to inject the repository through any flavour of injection you like. As Eranga pointed out, service locator might turn out to be a sub-par dependency injection ersatz though.
Last thing, the kind of injection you mentioned - SaveTo(IEntityAbcRepository repos) - is peculiar because it is neither constructor nor setter injection, but rather an ephemeral injection lasting just the time of a method. It implies that whoever calls your method must know what repository to pass at that precise moment, which is not obvious. It might be useful, but I'd say it's not the form of injection you would typically mainly use.
I understand the concept behind DI, but I'm just learning what different IoC containers can do. It seems that most people advocate using IoC containers to wire up stateless services, but what about using them for stateful objects like entities?
Whether it's right or wrong, I normally stuff my entities with behavior, even if that behavior requires an outside class. Example:
public class Order : IOrder
{
private string _ShipAddress;
private IShipQuoter _ShipQuoter;
public Order(IOrderData OrderData, IShipQuoter ShipQuoter)
{
// OrderData comes from a repository and has the data needed
// to construct order
_ShipAddress = OrderData.ShipAddress; // etc.
_ShipQuoter = ShipQuoter;
}
private decimal GetShippingRate()
{
return _ShipQuoter.GetRate(this);
}
}
As you can see, the dependencies are Constructor Injected. Now for a couple of questions.
Is it considered bad practice to have your entities depend on outside classes such as the ShipQuoter? Eliminating these dependencies seems to lead me towards an anemic domain, if I understand the definition correctly.
Is it bad practice to use an IoC container to resolve these dependencies and construct an entity when needed? Is it possible to do this?
Thanks for any insight.
The first question is the most difficult to answer. Is it bad practice to have Entities depend on outside classes? It's certainly not the most common thing to do.
If, for example, you inject a Repository into your Entities you effectively have an implementation of the Active Record pattern. Some people like this pattern for the convenience it provides, while others (like me) consider it a code smell or anti-pattern because it violates the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP).
You could argue that injecting other dependencies into Entities would pull you in the same direction (away from SRP). On the other hand you are certainly correct that if you don't do this, the pull is towards an Anemic Domain Model.
I struggled with all of this for a long time until I came across Greg Young's (abandonded) paper on DDDD where he explains why the stereotypical n-tier/n-layer architecture will always be CRUDy (and thus rather anemic).
Moving our focus to modeling Domain objects as Commands and Events instead of Nouns seems to enable us to build a proper object-oriented domain model.
The second question is easier to answer. You can always use an Abstract Factory to create instances at run-time. With Castle Windsor you can even use the Typed Factory Facility, relieving you of the burden of implementing the factories manually.
I know this is an old post but wanted to add. The domain entity should not persist itself even if you pass in an abstracted repository in ctor. The reason I am suggestion this is not merely that it violates SRP, it also contrary to DDD's aggregation. Let me explain, DDD is suited for complex apps with inherently deep graphs, therefore, we use aggregate or composite roots to persist changes to the underlying "children", so when we inject persistence into the individual children we violate the relationship children have to the composite or aggregate root that should be "in charge" of the life cycle or aggregation. Of course the composite root or aggregate does not persist it's own graph either. Another is with injecting dependencies of DDD objects is that an injected domain object effectively has no state until some other event takes place to hydrate its state. ANy consumer of the code will be forced to init or setup the domain object first before they can invoke business behavior which violates encapsulation.
I am bit curious as to what experience other developers have of applying the Repository pattern when programming in ASP.NET MVC with Entity Framework or NHibernate. It seems to me that this pattern is already implemented in the ORM themselves. DbContext and DbSet<T> in the Entity Framework and by the ISession in NHibernate. Most of the concerns mentioned in the Repository pattern - as catalogued in POEE and DDD - are pretty adequately implemented by these ORMs. Namely these concerns are,
Persistence
OO View of the data
Data Access Logic Abstraction
Query Access Logic
In addition, most of the implemententations of the repository pattern that I have seen follow this implementation pattern - assuming that we are developing a blog application.
NHibernate implementation:
public class PostRepository : IPostRepository
{
private ISession _session;
public PostRepository(ISession session)
{
_session = session;
}
public void Add(Post post)
{
_session.Save(post);
}
// other crud methods.
}
Entity Framework:
public class PostRepository : IPostRepository
{
private DbContext _session;
public PostRepository(DbContext session)
{
_session = session;
}
public void Add(Post post)
{
_session.Posts.Add(post);
-session.SaveChanges();
}
// other crud methods.
}
It seems to me that when we are using ORMs - such as Nhibernate or Entity Framework - creating these repository implementation are redundant. Furthermore since these pattern implementations does no more than what is already there in the ORMS, these act more as noise than helpful OO abstractions. It seems using the repository pattern in the situation mentioned above is nothing more than developer self aggrandizement and more pomp and ceremony without any realizable techical benefits. What are your thoughts ??
The answer is no if you do not need to be able to switch ORM or be able to test any class that has a dependency to your ORM/database.
If you want to be able to switch ORM or be able to easily test your classes which uses the database layer: Yes you need a repository (with an interface specification).
You can also switch to a memory repository (which I do in my unit tests), a XML file or whatever if you use repository pattern.
Update
The problem with most repository pattern implementations which you can find by Googling is that they don't work very well in production. They lack options to limit the result (paging) and ordering the result which is kind of amazing.
Repository pattern comes to it's glory when it's combined with a UnitOfWork implementation and has support for the Specification pattern.
If you find one having all of that, let me know :) (I do have my own, exception for a well working specification part)
Update 2
Repository is so much more than just accessing the database in a abstracted way such as can be done by ORM's. A normal Repository implementation should handle all aggregate entities (for instance Order and OrderLine). Bu handling them in the same repository class you can always make sure that those are built correctly.
But hey you say: That's done automatically for me by the ORM. Well, yes and no. If you create a website, you most likely want to edit only one order line. Do you fetch the complete order, loop through it to find the order, and then add it to the view?
By doing so you introduce logic to your controller that do not belong there. How do you do it when a webservice want's the same thing? Duplicate your code?
By using a ORM it's quite easy to fetch any entity from anywhere myOrm.Fetch<User>(user => user.Id == 1) modify it and then save it. This can be quite handy, but also add code smells since you duplicate code and have no control over how the objects are created, if they got a valid state or correct associations.
The next thing that comes to mind is that you might want to be able to subscribe on events like Created, Updated and Deleted in a centralized way. That's easy if you have a repository.
For me an ORM provides a way to map classes to tables and nothing more. I still like to wrap them in repositories to have control over them and get a single point of modification.
I think it make sense only if you want to decrease level of dependency. In the abstract you can have IPostRepository in your infrastructure package and several independent implementations of this interface built on top of EF or NH, or something else. It useful for TDD.
In practice NH session (and EF context) implements something like the "Unit of Work" pattern. Furthermore with NH and the Repository pattern you can get a lot of bugs and architectural issues.
For example, NH entity can be saved bypassing your Repository implementation. You can get it from session (Repository.Load), change one of its properties, and call session.Flush (at the end of request for example, because Repository pattern doesn't suppose flushing) - and your changes will be successfully processed in db.
You've only mentioned basic CRUD actions. Doing these directly does mean you have to be aware of transactions, flushing and other things that a repository can wrap up, but I guess the value of repositories becomes more apparent when you think about complex retrieval queries.
Imagine then that you do decide to use the NHibernate session directly in your application layer.
You will need to do the equivalent of WHERE clauses and ORDER BYs etc, using either HQL or NHibernate criteria. This means your code has to reference NHibernate, and contains ideas specific to NHibernate. This makes your application hard to test and harder for others unfamiliar with NH to follow. A call to repository.GetCompletedOrders is much more descriptive and reusable than one that includes something like "where IsComplete = true and IsDeleted = false..." etc.
You could use Linq to NHibernate instead, but now you have the situation where you can easily forget that you're working on an IQueryable. You could end up chaining Linq expressions which generate enormous queries when they execute, without realising it (I speak from experience)! Mike Hadlow sparked a conversation on essentially this topic in his post Should my repository expose IQueryable.
N.b. If you don't like having lots of methods on custom repositories for different queries (like GetCompletedOrders), you can use specification parameters (like Get(specification)), which allow you to specify filters, orderings etc. without using data access language.
Going back to the list of benefits of repository that you gave:
Persistence
OO View of the data
Data Access Logic Abstraction
Query Access Logic
You can see that points 3 and 4 are not provided for by using the persistence framework classes directly, especially in real world retrieval scenarios.
I have been reading though the code of the NerdDinner app and specifically the Repository Pattern...
I have one simple question though, regarding this block
public DinnersController()
: this(new DinnerRepository()) {
}
public DinnersController(IDinnerRepository repository) {
dinnerRepository = repository;
}
What if each Dinner also had, say, a Category... my question is
Would you also initialize the category Repository in the constructor of the class??
Im sure it would work but Im not sure if the correct way would be to initialize the repository inside the method that is going to use that repository or just in the constructor of the class??
I would appreciate some insight on this issue
Thanks.
What you're looking at here is actually not so much to do with the repository pattern, per se, and more to do with "dependency injection," where the outside things on which this class depends are "injected" from without, rather rather than instantiated within (by calling new Repository(), for example).
This specific example shows "constructor injection," where the dependencies are injected when the object is created. This is handy because you can always know that the object is in a particular state (that it has a repository implementation). You could just as easily use property injection, where you provide a public setter for assigning the repository or other dependency. This forfeits the stated advantage of constructor injection, and is somewhat less clear when examining the code, but an inversion-of-control container can handle the work of instantiating objects and injecting dependencies in the constructor and/or properties.
This fosters proper encapsulation and improves testability substantially.
The fact that you aren't instantiating collaborators within the class is what improves testability (you can isolate the behaviour of a class by injecting stub or mock instances when testing).
The key word here when it comes to the repository pattern is encapsulation. The repository pattern takes all that data access stuff and hides it from the classes consuming the repository. Even though an ORM might be hiding all the actual CRUD work, you're still bound to the ORM implementation. The repository can act as a facade or adapter -- offering an abstract interface for accessing objects.
So, when you take these concepts together, you have a controller class that does not handle data access itself and does not instantiate a repository to handle it. Rather the controller accepts an injected repository, and knows only the interface. What is the benefit? That you can change your data access entirely and never ever touch the controller.
Getting further to your question, the repository is a dependency, and it is being provided in the constructor for the reasons outlined above. If you have a further dependency on a CategoryRepository, then yes, by all means inject that in the constructor as well.
Alternatively, you can provide factory classes as dependencies -- again classes that implement some factory interface, but instead of the dependency itself, this is a class that knows how to create the dependency. Maybe you want a different IDinnerRepository for different situations. The factory could accept a parameter and return an implementation according to some logic, and since it will always be an IDinnerRepository, the controller needs be none the wiser about what that repository is actually doing.
To keep your code decoupled and your controllers easily testable you need to stick with dependency injection so either:
public DinnersController()
: this(new DinnerRepository(), new CategoryRepository()) {
}
or the less elegant
public DinnersController()
: this(new DinnerRepository(new CategoryRepository())) {
}
I would have my dinner categories in my dinner repository personally. But if they had to be seperate the id put them both in the ctor.
You'd want to pass it in to the constructor. That said, I probably wouldn't create any concrete class like it's being done there.
I'm not familiar with the NerdDinner app, but I think the preferred approach is to define an IDinnerRepository (and ICategoryRepository). If you code against interfaces and wanted to switch to say, an xml file, MySQL database or a web service you would not need to change your controller code.
Pushing this out just a little further, you can look at IoC containers like ninject. The gist of it is is that you map your IDinnerRepository to a concrete implementation application wide. Then whenever a controller is created, the concrete repository (or any other dependency you might need) is provided for you even though you're coding against an interface.
It depends on whether you will be testing your Controllers (, which you should be doing). Passing the repositories in by the constructor, and having them automatically injected by your IOC container, is combining convenience with straightforward testing. I would suggest putting all needed repositories in the constructor.
If you seem to have a lot of different repositories in your constructors, it might be a sign that your controller is trying to do too many unrelated things. Might; sometimes using multiple repositories is legitimate.
Edit in response to comment:
A lot of repositories in one controller constructor might be considered a bad code smell, but a bad smell is not something wrong; it is something to look at because there might be something wrong. If you determine that having these activities handled in the same controller makes for the highest overall simplicity in your solution, then do that, with as many repositories as you need in the constructor.
I can use myself as an example as to why many repositories in a controller is a bad smell. I tend to get too cute, trying to do too many things on a page or controller. I always get suspicious when I see myself putting a lot of repositories in the constructor, because I sometimes do try to cram too much into a controller. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. Or, maybe the code smell does indicate a deeper problem, but it not one that is too horrible, you can fix it right now, and maybe you won't ever fix it: not the end of the world.
Note: It can help minimize repositories when you have one repository per Aggregate root, rather than per Entity class.
How often do you use IoC for controllers/DAL in real projects?
IoC allows to abstract application from concrete implementation with additional layer of interfaces that should be implemented. But how often concrete implementation changes? Should we really have to do job twice adding method to interface then the implementation if implementation hardly will ever be changed? I took part in about 10 asp.net projects and DAL (ORM-like and not) was never rewritten completely.
Watching lots of videos I clearly understand that IoC "is cool" and the really nice way to program, but does it really needed?
Added a bit later:
Yes, IoC allows prepare better testing environment, but we also have nice way to test DAL without IoC. We wrap DAL calls to database into uncommited transactions without risk to make data unstable.
IoC isn't a pattern only for writing modular programs; it also allows for easier testing, by being able to swap in mock objects that implement the same interface as the components they stand in for.
Plus, it actually makes code much easier to maintain down the road.
It's not IOC that allows you to abstract application from concrete implementation with additional layer of interfaces, this is how you should design your application in order to be more modular and reusable. Another important benefit is that once you've designed your application this way it will be much easier to test the different parts in isolation without depending on concrete database access for example.
There's much more about IoC except ability to change implementation:
testing
explicit dependencies - not hidden inside private DataContext
automatic instantiation - you declare in constructor that you need something, and you get it - with all deep nested dependencies resolved
separation of assemblies - take a look at S#arp Architecture to see how IoC allows to avoid referencing NHibernate and other specific assemblies, which otherwise you'll have to reference
management of lifetime - ability to specify per request / singleton / transitive lifetime of objects and change it in one place, instead of in dozens of controllers
ability to do dynamic stuff, like, getting correct data context in model binders, because with IoC you now have metadata about your dependencies; and this shows that maybe IoC does to your object dependencies what reflection does to C# programming - a lot of new possibilities, that you never even thought about
And so on, I'm sure I missed a lot of positive stuff. While the only "bad" thing that I can think about (and that you mentioned) is duplication of interface, which is non-issue with modern IDEs support for refactoring.
Well, if your data interfaces change every day, and you have hundreds of them - you may want to avoid IoC.
But, do you avoid good design practices just because it's harder to follow them? Do you copy and paste code instead of extracting a method/class, just because it takes more time and more code to do so? Do you place business logic in views just because it's harder to create view models and sync them with domain models? If yes, then you can avoid IoC, no problem.
You're arguing that using IOC takes MORE code than not using it. I disagree.
Here is the entire DAL IOC configuration for one of my projects using LinqToSql. The ContextProvider class is simply a thread safe LinqToSql context factory.
container.Register(Component.For<IContextProvider<LSDataContext>, IContextProvider>().LifeStyle.PerWebRequest.ImplementedBy<ContextProvider<LSDataContext>>();
container.Register(Component.For<IContextProvider<WorkSheetDataContext>, IContextProvider>().LifeStyle.PerWebRequest.ImplementedBy<ContextProvider<WorkSheetDataContext>>();
container.Register(Component.For<IContextProvider<OffersReadContext>, IContextProvider>().LifeStyle.PerWebRequest.ImplementedBy<ContextProvider<OffersReadContext>>();
Here is the entire DAL configuration for one of my projects using NHibernate and the repository pattern:
container.Register(Component.For<NHSessionBuilder>().LifeStyle.Singleton);
container.Register(Component.For(typeof(IRepository<>)).ImplementedBy(typeof(NHRepositoryBase<>)));
Here is how I consume the DAL in my BLL (w/ dependency injection):
public class ClientService
{
private readonly IRepository<Client> _Clients;
public ClientService(IRepository<Client> clients)
{
_Clients = clients;
}
public IEnumerable<Client> GetClientsWithGoodCredit()
{
return _Clients.Where(c => c.HasGoodCredit);
}
}
Note that my IRepository<> interface inherits IQueryable<> so this code is very trivial!
Here's how I can test my BLL without connecting to a DB:
public void GetClientsWithGoodCredit_ReturnsClientWithGoodCredit()
{
var clientWithGoodCredit = new Client() {HasGoodCredit = true};
var clientWithBadCredit = new Client() {HasGoodCredit = false};
var clients = new List<Client>() { clientWithGoodCredit, clientWithBadCredit }.ToTestRepository();
var service = new ClientService(clients);
var clientsWithGoodCredit = service.GetClientsWithGoodCredit();
Assert(clientsWithGoodCredit.Count() == 1);
Assert(clientsWithGoodCredit.First() == clientWithGoodCredit);
}
ToTestRepository() is an extension method that returns a fake IRepository<> that uses an in-memory list.
There is no possible way you can argue that this is more complicated than newing up your DAL all over your BLL.
The only way you could have ever written the above test is by connecting to a DB, saving some test clients, and then querying. I guarantee that takes 100+ times longer to execute than this did. (Times that by 1000 tests and you can go get some coffee while you're waiting.)
Also, by using uncommitted transactions for testing you introduce debugging nightmares resulting from ORMs that don't query over uncommitted entities.