Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed last month.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question last month and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
Recently I've read Mark Seemann's article about Service Locator anti-pattern.
Author points out two main reasons why ServiceLocator is an anti-pattern:
API usage issue (which I'm perfectly fine with)
When class employs a Service locator it is very hard to see its dependencies as, in most cases, class has only one PARAMETERLESS constructor.
In contrast with ServiceLocator, DI approach explicitly exposes dependencies via constructor's parameters so dependencies are easily seen in IntelliSense.
Maintenance issue (which puzzles me)
Consider the following expample
We have a class 'MyType' which employs a Service locator approach:
public class MyType
{
public void MyMethod()
{
var dep1 = Locator.Resolve<IDep1>();
dep1.DoSomething();
}
}
Now we want to add another dependency to class 'MyType'
public class MyType
{
public void MyMethod()
{
var dep1 = Locator.Resolve<IDep1>();
dep1.DoSomething();
// new dependency
var dep2 = Locator.Resolve<IDep2>();
dep2.DoSomething();
}
}
And here is where my misunderstanding starts. The author says:
It becomes a lot harder to tell whether you are introducing a breaking change or not. You need to understand the entire application in which the Service Locator is being used, and the compiler is not going to help you.
But wait a second, if we were using DI approach, we would introduce a dependency with another parameter in constructor (in case of constructor injection). And the problem will be still there. If we may forget to setup ServiceLocator, then we may forget to add a new mapping in our IoC container and DI approach would have the same run-time problem.
Also, author mentioned about unit test difficulties. But, won't we have issues with DI approach? Won't we need to update all tests which were instantiating that class? We will update them to pass a new mocked dependency just to make our test compilable. And I don't see any benefits from that update and time spending.
I'm not trying to defend Service Locator approach. But this misunderstanding makes me think that I'm losing something very important. Could somebody dispel my doubts?
UPDATE (SUMMARY):
The answer for my question "Is Service Locator an anti-pattern" really depends upon the circumstances. And I definitely wouldn't suggest to cross it out from your tool list. It might become very handy when you start dealing with legacy code. If you're lucky enough to be at the very beginning of your project then the DI approach might be a better choice as it has some advantages over Service Locator.
And here are main differences which convinced me to not use Service Locator for my new projects:
Most obvious and important: Service Locator hides class dependencies
If you are utilizing some IoC container it will likely scan all constructor at startup to validate all dependencies and give you immediate feedback on missing mappings (or wrong configuration); this is not possible if you're using your IoC container as Service Locator
For details read excellent answers which are given below.
If you define patterns as anti-patterns just because there are some situations where it does not fit, then YES it's an anti pattern. But with that reasoning all patterns would also be anti patterns.
Instead we have to look if there are valid usages of the patterns, and for Service Locator there are several use cases. But let's start by looking at the examples that you have given.
public class MyType
{
public void MyMethod()
{
var dep1 = Locator.Resolve<IDep1>();
dep1.DoSomething();
// new dependency
var dep2 = Locator.Resolve<IDep2>();
dep2.DoSomething();
}
}
The maintenance nightmare with that class is that the dependencies are hidden. If you create and use that class:
var myType = new MyType();
myType.MyMethod();
You do not understand that it has dependencies if they are hidden using service location. Now, if we instead use dependency injection:
public class MyType
{
public MyType(IDep1 dep1, IDep2 dep2)
{
}
public void MyMethod()
{
dep1.DoSomething();
// new dependency
dep2.DoSomething();
}
}
You can directly spot the dependencies and cannot use the classes before satisfying them.
In a typical line of business application you should avoid the use of service location for that very reason. It should be the pattern to use when there are no other options.
Is the pattern an anti-pattern?
No.
For instance, inversion of control containers would not work without service location. It's how they resolve the services internally.
But a much better example is ASP.NET MVC and WebApi. What do you think makes the dependency injection possible in the controllers? That's right -- service location.
Your questions
But wait a second, if we were using DI approach, we would introduce a
dependency with another parameter in constructor (in case of
constructor injection). And the problem will be still there.
There are two more serious problems:
With service location you are also adding another dependency: The service locator.
How do you tell which lifetime the dependencies should have, and how/when they should get cleaned up?
With constructor injection using a container you get that for free.
If we may
forget to setup ServiceLocator, then we may forget to add a new
mapping in our IoC container and DI approach would have the same
run-time problem.
That's true. But with constructor injection you do not have to scan the entire class to figure out which dependencies are missing.
And some better containers also validate all dependencies at startup (by scanning all constructors). So with those containers you get the runtime error directly, and not at some later temporal point.
Also, author mentioned about unit test difficulties. But, won't we have issues with DI approach?
No. As you do not have a dependency to a static service locator. Have you tried to get parallel tests working with static dependencies? It's not fun.
I would also like to point out that IF you are refactoring legacy code that the Service Locator pattern is not only not an anti-pattern, but it is also a practical necessity. No-one is ever going to wave a magic wand over millions of lines of code and suddenly all that code is going to be DI ready. So if you want to start introducing DI to an existing code base it is often the case that you will change things to become DI services slowly, and the code that references these services will often NOT be DI services. Hence THOSE services will need to use the Service Locator in order to get instances of those services that HAVE been converted to use DI.
So when refactoring large legacy applications to start to use DI concepts I would say that not only is Service Locator NOT an anti-pattern, but that it is the only way to gradually apply DI concepts to the code base.
From the testing point of view, Service Locator is bad. See Misko Hevery's Google Tech Talk nice explanation with code examples http://youtu.be/RlfLCWKxHJ0 starting at minute 8:45. I liked his analogy: if you need $25, ask directly for money rather than giving your wallet from where money will be taken. He also compares Service Locator with a haystack that has the needle you need and knows how to retrieve it. Classes using Service Locator are hard to reuse because of it.
Maintenance issue (which puzzles me)
There are 2 different reasons why using service locator is bad in this regard.
In your example, you are hard-coding a static reference to the service locator into your class. This tightly couples your class directly to the service locator, which in turns means it won't function without the service locator. Furthermore, your unit tests (and anybody else who uses the class) are also implicitly dependent on the service locator. One thing that has seemed to go unnoticed here is that when using constructor injection you don't need a DI container when unit testing, which simplifies your unit tests (and developers' ability to understand them) considerably. That is the realized unit testing benefit you get from using constructor injection.
As for why constructor Intellisense is important, people here seem to have missed the point entirely. A class is written once, but it may be used in several applications (that is, several DI configurations). Over time, it pays dividends if you can look at the constructor definition to understand a class's dependencies, rather than looking at the (hopefully up-to-date) documentation or, failing that, going back to the original source code (which might not be handy) to determine what a class's dependencies are. The class with the service locator is generally easier to write, but you more than pay the cost of this convenience in ongoing maintenance of the project.
Plain and simple: A class with a service locator in it is more difficult to reuse than one that accepts its dependencies through its constructor.
Consider the case where you need to use a service from LibraryA that its author decided would use ServiceLocatorA and a service from LibraryB whose author decided would use ServiceLocatorB. We have no choice other than using 2 different service locators in our project. How many dependencies need to be configured is a guessing game if we don't have good documentation, source code, or the author on speed dial. Failing these options, we might need to use a decompiler just to figure out what the dependencies are. We may need to configure 2 entirely different service locator APIs, and depending on the design, it may not be possible to simply wrap your existing DI container. It may not be possible at all to share one instance of a dependency between the two libraries. The complexity of the project could even be further compounded if the service locators don't happen to actually reside in the same libraries as the services we need - we are implicitly dragging additional library references into our project.
Now consider the same two services made with constructor injection. Add a reference to LibraryA. Add a reference to LibraryB. Provide the dependencies in your DI configuration (by analyzing what is needed via Intellisense). Done.
Mark Seemann has a StackOverflow answer that clearly illustrates this benefit in graphical form, which not only applies when using a service locator from another library, but also when using foreign defaults in services.
My knowledge is not good enough to judge this, but in general, I think if something has a use in a particular situation, it does not necessarily mean it cannot be an anti-pattern. Especially, when you are dealing with 3rd party libraries, you don't have full control on all aspects and you may end up using the not very best solution.
Here is a paragraph from Adaptive Code Via C#:
"Unfortunately, the service locator is sometimes an unavoidable anti-pattern. In some application types— particularly Windows Workflow Foundation— the infrastructure does not lend itself to constructor injection. In these cases, the only alternative is to use a service locator. This is better than not injecting dependencies at all. For all my vitriol against the (anti-) pattern, it is infinitely better than manually constructing dependencies. After all, it still enables those all-important extension points provided by interfaces that allow decorators, adapters, and similar benefits."
-- Hall, Gary McLean. Adaptive Code via C#: Agile coding with design patterns and SOLID principles (Developer Reference) (p. 309). Pearson Education.
I can suggest considering generic approach to avoid the demerits of Service Locator pattern.
It allows explicitly declaring class dependencies and substitute mocks and doesn't depend on a particular DI Container.
Possible drawbacks of this approach is:
It makes your control classes generic.
It is not easy to override some particular interface.
1 First Declare interface
public interface IResolver<T>
{
T Resolve();
}
Create ‘flattened’ class with implementing of resolving the most of frequently used interfaces from DI Container and register it.
This short example uses Service Locator but before composition root. Alternative way is inject each interface with constructor.
public class FlattenedServices :
IResolver<I1>,
IResolver<I2>,
IResolver<I3>
{
private readonly DIContainer diContainer;
public FlattenedServices(DIContainer diContainer)
{
this.diContainer = diContainer;
}
I1 IResolver<I1>.Resolve()
=> diContainer.Resolve<I1>();
I2 IResolver<I2>.Resolve()
=> diContainer.Resolve<I2>();
I3 IResolver<I3>.Resolve()
=> diContainer.Resolve<I3>();
}
Constructor injection on some MyType class should look like
public class MyType<T> : IResolver<T>
where T : class, IResolver<I1>, IResolver<I3>
{
T servicesContext;
public MyType(T servicesContext)
{
this.servicesContext = servicesContext
?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(serviceContext));
_ = (servicesContext as IResolver<I1>).Resolve() ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(I1));
_ = (servicesContext as IResolver<I3>).Resolve() ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(I3));
}
public void MyMethod()
{
var dep1 = ((IResolver<I1>)servicesContext).Resolve();
dep1.DoSomething();
var dep3 = ((IResolver<I3>)servicesContext).Resolve();
dep3.DoSomething();
}
T IResolver<T>.Resolve() => serviceContext;
}
P.S. If you don't need to pass servicesContext further in MyType, you can declare object servicesContext; and make generic only ctor not class.
P.P.S. That FlattenedServices class could be considered as main DI container and a branded container could be considered as supplementary container.
The Author reasons that "the compiler won't help you" - and it is true.
When you deign a class, you will want to carefully choose its interface - among other goals to make it as independent as ... as it makes sense.
By having the client accept the reference to a service (to a dependency) through explicit interface, you
implicitly get checking, so the compiler "helps".
You're also removing the need for the client to know something about the "Locator" or similar mechanisms, so the client is actually more independent.
You're right that DI has its issues / disadvantages, but the mentioned advantages outweigh them by far ... IMO.
You're right, that with DI there is a dependency introduced in the interface (constructor) - but this is hopefully the very dependency that you need and that you want to make visible and checkable.
Yes, service locator is an anti-pattern it violates encapsulation and solid.
Service Locator(SL)
Service Locator solves [DIP + DI] issue. It allows by interface name satisfy needs. Service Locator can be as singleton or can be passed into constructor.
class A {
IB ib
init() {
ib = ServiceLocator.resolve<IB>();
}
}
The problem here that it is not clear which exactly classes(realizations of IB) are used by client(A).
proposal - pass parameter explicitly
class A {
IB ib
init(ib: IB) {
self.ib = ib
}
}
SL vs DI IoC Container(framework)
SL is about saving instances when DI IoC Container(framework) is more about creating instances.
SL works as a PULL command when it retrieves dependencies inside constructor
DI IoC Container(framework) works as a PUSH command when it put dependencies into constructor
I think that the author of the article shot himself on the foot in proving that it's an anti pattern with the update written 5 years later. There, it is said that this is the correct way:
public OrderProcessor(IOrderValidator validator, IOrderShipper shipper)
{
if (validator == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("validator");
if (shipper == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("shipper");
this.validator = validator;
this.shipper = shipper;
}
Then below is said:
Now it's clear that all three object are required before you can call the Process method; this version of the OrderProcessor class advertises its preconditions via the type system. You can't even compile client code unless you pass arguments to constructor and method (you can pass null, but that's another discussion).
Let me stress the last part again:
you can pass null, but that's another discussion
Why that is another discussion? That is a huge deal. An object that receives its dependencies as arguments fully depends on the previous execution of the application (or tests) to provide those objects as valid references/pointers. It is not "encapsulated" in the terms that the author expressed, as it depends on a lot of external machinery to run in a satisfactory manner for the object to be constructed at all, and later to work properly when it needs to use the other class.
The author claims that it's the Service Locator which is not encapsulated because it's depending on an additional object that you can't isolate from on the tests. But that other object could very well be a trivial map or vector, so it's pure data with no behavior. In C++, for example, containers are not part of the language, so you rely on containers (vectors, hash maps, strings, etc.) for all non-trivial classes. Are they not isolated because rely on containers? I don't think so.
I think that both using manual dependency injection or a service locator the objects are not really isolated from the rest: they need their dependencies, yes or yes, but are provided in a different way. I for one think that a locator even helps with the DRY principle, as it's error prone and repetitive to pass over and over pointers through the application. The service locator can also be more flexible in that an object might retrieve its dependencies when needed (if needed), not only via the constructor.
The problem of the dependencies not being explicit enough via the constructor of the object (on an object using the service locator) is solved by the very thing I stressed out before: passing null pointers. It can be even used to mix and match both systems: if the pointer is null, use the service locator, otherwise, use the pointer. Now it is enforced via the type system, and it's obvious to the user of the class. But we can do even better.
One additional solution that is surely doable with C++ (I don't know about Java/C#, but I suppose it could be done as well), is to write a helper class to be instantiated like LocatorChecker<IOrderValidator, IOrderShipper>. That object could check on it's constructor/destructor that the service locator holds a valid instance of the required classes, hence, being also less repetitive than the example provided by Mark Seeman.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm about to get used to Ninject. I understand the principles of Dependency Injection and I know how to use Ninject. But I'm a little confused right now. The opinions drift apart when it comes to the Service Locator pattern.
My application is built upon a strictly modular basis. I try to use constructor injection as much as I can and this works pretty well, though it's a little bit messy (in my opinion).
Now when an extension (external code) wants to benefit from this system, wouldn't it be required to have access to the kernel? I mean right now I have one static class which gives access to all subsystems of my application. An alternative would be having access to the kernel (Service Locator pattern) and grabbing the subsystem dependencies from this one.
Here I can easily avoid giving access to the kernel or to be more explicit, not allowing dependencies to the kernel.
But if an extension now wants to use any components (interfaces) of my application, from any subsystem, it would be required to have access to the kernel in order to resolve them because Ninject does not automatically resolve as long as you're not using "kernel.Get()", right?
Peww, it's really difficult explaining this in an understandable way. I hope you guys get what I'm aiming for.
Why is it so "bad" having a dependency to the kernel or a wrapper of it? I mean, you can't avoid all dependencies. For example I still have the one to my "Core" class which gives access to all subsystems.
What if an extension wants to register it's own module for further usage?
I can't find any good answer for why this should be a bad approach, but I read it quite often. Moreover it is stated that Ninject does NOT use this approach unlike Unity or similiar frameworks.
Thanks :)
There are religious wars about this...
The first thing that people say when you mention a Service Locator is: "but what if I want to change my container?". This argument is almost always invalid given that a "proper" Service Locator could be abstract enough to allow you to switch the underlying container.
That said, use of a Service Locator has in my experience, made the code difficult to work with. Your Service Locator must be passed around everywhere, and then your code is tightly coupled to the very existence of a Service Locator.
When you use a Service Locator, you have two main options to maintain modules in a "decoupled" (loosely used here..) way.
Option 1:
Pass your locator into everything that requires it. Essentially this means your code becomes lots and lots of this sort of code:
var locator = _locator;
var customerService = locator.Get<ICustomerService>();
var orders = customerService.GetOrders(locator, customerId); // locator again
// .. further down..
var repo = locator.Get<ICustomerRepository>();
var orderRepo = locator.Get<IOrderRepository>();
// ...etc...
Option 2:
Smash all of your code into a single assembly and provide a public static Service Locator somewhere. This is even worse.. and ends up being the same as above (just with direct calls to the Service Locator).
Ninject is lucky (by lucky I mean - has a great maintainer/extender in Remo) in that it has a heap of extensions that allow you to fully utilise Inversion of Control in almost all parts of your system, eliminating the sort of code I showed above.
This is a bit against SO's policy but to extend on Simon`s answer i'll direct you to Mark Seeman's excellent blog post: http://blog.ploeh.dk/2010/02/03/ServiceLocatorisanAnti-Pattern/
Some of the comments to the blog post are very interesting, too.
Now to address your problem with ninject and extensions - which i assume are unknown to you/the composition root at the time when you write them - i would like to point out the NinjectModules. Ninject already features such an extensibility mechanism which is heavily used with/by all ninject.extension.XYZ dlls.
What you'll do is implement some FooExtensionModule : NinjectModule classes in your extensions. The Modules contain the Bind methods. Now you'll tell ninject to load all Modules from some .dll's. That's it.
It's explained in far more greater detail here: https://github.com/ninject/ninject/wiki/Modules-and-the-Kernel
Drawbacks:
Extensions depend on Ninject
you may need to recompile your extensions when you "update ninject"
as the software grows, it will make it more and more expensive to switch DI containers
When using Rebind issues may arise which are difficult to track down (well this is the case whether your using Modules or not.)
Especially when extension-developers don't know about other extensions, they might create identical or conflicting bindings (such as .Bind<string>().ToConst("Foo") and .Bind<string>().ToConst("Bar")). Again, this is also the case when you're not using Modules, but extensions add one more layer of complexity.
Advantage:
- simple and to the point, there's no extra layer of complication/abstraction which you'd need to abstract the container away.
I've used the NinjectModule approach in a not-so-small Application (15k unit/component tests) with a lot of success.
If all you need are simple bindings like .Bind<IFoo>().To<Foo>() without scopes and so on, you might also consider using a simpler system like putting attributes on classes, scanning for these, and creating the bindings in the composition root. This approach is way less powerful but because of that it is much more "portable" (adaptable to be used with other DI container), too.
Dependency Injection an late instantiation
the idea of composition root is, that (whenever possible) you create all objects (the entire object graph) in one go. For example, in the Main method you might have kernel.Get<IMainViewModel>().Show().
However, sometimes this is not feasible or appropriate. In such cases you will need to use factories. There's actually a bunch of answers to this regard on stackoverflow already.
There's three basic types:
To create an an instance of Foo which requires instances of Dependency1 and Dependency2 (ctor injected), create a class FooFactory which gets one instance of Dependency1 and Dependency2 ctor injected itself. The FooFactory.Create method will then do new Foo(this.dependency1, this.dependency2).
use ninject.extensions.Factory:
use Func<Foo> as a factory: you can have a Func<Foo> injected and then call it to crate an instance of Foo.
use interfaces and .ToFactory() binding (i recommend this approach. Cleaner code, better testability). For example: IFooFactory with method Foo Create(). Bind it like: Bind<IFooFactory>().ToFactory();
Extensions which replace Implementations
IMHO this is not one of the goals of dependency-injection containers. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it just means you've got to figure it out yourself.
The simplest you could to with ninject would be to use .Rebind<IFoo>().To<SomeExtensionsFoo>(). However, as stated before, that's a bit brittle. If the Bind and Rebind are executed in the wrong sequence, it fails. If there's multiple Rebinds, the last will win - but is it the correct one?
So let's take it one step further. Imagine:
`.Bind<IFoo>().To<SomeExtensionsFoo>().WhenExtensionEnabled<SomeExtension>();`
you can devise your own custom WhenExtensionEnabled<TExtension>() extension method which extends the When(Func<bool> condition) syntax method.
You'll have to devise a way to detect whether an extension is enabled or not.
I'm slightly new to Unity and IoC, but not to MVC. I've been reading and reading about using Unity with MVC and the only really useful thing I'm consistently seeing is the ability to get free DI with the controllers.
To go from this:
public HomeController() : this(new UserRepository())
{
}
public HomeController(IUserRepository userRepository)
{
this.UserRepository = userRepository;
}
To this:
public HomeController(IUserRepository userRepository)
{
this.UserRepository = userRepository;
}
Basically, allowing me to drop the no parameter constructor. This is great and all and I'm going to implement this for sure, but it doesn't seem like it's anything really that great for all the hype about IoC libraries. Going the way of using Unity as a service locator sounds compelling, but many would argue it's an anti pattern.
So my question is, with service locating out of the question and some DI opportunities with Views and Filters, is there anything else I gain from using Unity? I just want to make sure I'm not missing something wonderful like free DI support for all class constructors.
EDIT:
I understand the testability purpose behind using Unity DI with MVC controllers. But all I would have to do is add that one extra little constructor, nix Unity, and I could UnitTest just the same. Where is the great benefit in registering your repository types and having a custom controller factory when the alternative is simpler? The alternative being native DI. I guess I'm really wondering what is so great about Unity (or any IoC library) besides Service Locating which is bad. Is free Controller DI really the ONLY thing I get from Unity?
A good IoC container not only creates the concrete class for you, it examines the couplings between that type and other types. If there are additional dependencies, it resolves them and creates instances of all of the classes that are required.
You can do fancy things like conditional binding. Here's an example using Ninject (my preferred IoC):
ninjectKernel.Bind<IValueCalculator>().To<LinqValueCalculator>();
ninjectKernel.Bind<IValueCalculator>().To<IterativeValueCalculator().WhenInjectedInto<LimitShoppingCart>();
What ninject is doing here is creating an instance of IterativeValueCalculator when injecting into LimitShoppingCart and an instance of LinqValueCalulator for any other injection.
Greatest benefit is separation of concern (decoupling) and testability.
Regarding why Service Locator is considered bad(by some guys) you can read this blog-post by Mark Seeman.
Answering on your question What is so good in Unity I can say that apart from all the testability, loosely-coupling and other blah-blah-blah-s everyone is talking about you can use such awesome feature like Unity's Interception which allows to do some AOP-like things. I've used it in some of last projects and liked it pretty much. Strongly recommended!
p.s. Seems like Castle Windsor DI container has similar feature as well(called Interceptors). Other containers - not sure.
Besides testing (which is a huge benefit and should not be under estimated), dependency injection allows:
Maintainability: The ability to alter the behavior of your code with a single change.
If you decide to change the class that retrieves your users across all your controllers/services etc. without dependency injection, you need to update each and every constructor plus any other random new instances that are being created, provided you remember where each one lives. DI allows you to change one definition that is then used across all implementations.
Scope: With a single line of code you can alter your implementation to create a singleton, a class that is only created on each new web request or on each new thread
Readability: The use of dependency injection means that all your concrete classes are defined in one place. As a developer coming onto a project, I can quickly and easily see exactly which concrete classes are mapped to which interfaces and know that there are no hidden implemetations. It means I can not only read the code better but empowers me to have the confidence to develop against the code
Design: I believe using dependency injection helps create well designed code. You automatically code to interfaces, your code becomes cleaner because you haven't got strange blocks of code to help you test
And let's no forget...
Testing: Testing is huge! Dependency injection allows you to test your code without having to write code specifically for tests. Ok, you can create a new constructor, but what is stop anyone else using that constructor for a purpose it has not been intended for. What if another developer comes along six months later and adds production logic to your 'test' constructor. Ok, so you can make it internal but this can still be used by production code. Why give them the option.
My experience with IoC frameworks has been largely around Ninject. As such, the above is based on what I know of Ninject, however the same principles should remain the same across other frameworks.
No the main point is that you then have a mapping somewhere that specifies the concrete type of IUserRepository. And the reason that you might like that is that you can then create a UnitTest that specifies a mocked version of IUserRepository and execute your tests without changing anything in your controller.
Testability mostly, but id suggest looking at Ninject, it plays well with MVC. To get the full benefits of IOC you should really be combining this with Moq or a similar mocking framework.
Besides the testability, I think you can also add the extensibility as one of the advantages. One of the best practices of Software Development is "working with abstractions, not with implementations" and, while you can do it in several ways, Unity provides a very extensible and easy way to achieve this. By using this, you will be creating abstractions that will define the contracts that your component must comply. Say that you want to change totally the Repository that your application currently uses. With DI you just "swap" the component without the need of changing a single line of code on your application. If you are using hard references, you might need to change and recompile your application because of a component that is external to it (In a different layer)
So, bottom line, IMHO, using DI helps you to have pluggable components in your application and have a SOLID application design
I'm trying to learn dependency injection, and there are many subtleties to it I'm yet to grasp. One of the books that I've started reading for that purpose is "Foundations of Programming" by Karl Seguin. There's an example about dependency injection:
public class Car
{
private int _id;
public void Save()
{
if (!IsValid())
{
//todo: come up with a better exception
throw new InvalidOperationException("The car must be in a valid state");
}
IDataAccess dataAccess = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IDataAccess>();
if (_id == 0)
{
_id = dataAccess.Save(this);
}
else
{
dataAccess.Update(this);
}
}
}
And then he goes ahead and suggest adding another level of indirection, rather than calling ObjectFactory directly in the method:
public static class DataFactory
{
public static IDataAccess CreateInstance
{
get
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IDataAccess>();
}
}
}
But isn't this "Service Location" in fact?
It is service locator. There are several of ways to use dependency:
aggregation (example case)
composition
DI in constructor, mandatory (could be injected using SL on upper level)
DI in property, optional (could be injected using SL on upper level)
What to choose depends on many factors, for example whether it is stable or unstable dependency, whether you need to mock it in tests or not etc. There is good book on DI called 'Dependency Injection in .NET' by Mark Seemann.
Yes, looks like SL to me. Dependency injection traditionally follows one of two patterns; property injection or constructor injection.
Dependency injection feels more effort than service location at first, but service location (SL) has a number of negatives. It is far too easy with a service locator to just go crazy requesting services on a whim, all over the place. This is fine until you go to refactor and realise the coupling is "too damn high".
With DI I prefer the constructor injection form because it forces me to think up front about who needs what.
That all said, my current project was started as a green field project using a service locator because it gave me the flexibility "not" to think about dependencies and to let the application shape evolve. Latterly I've been refactoring to use DI, mainly to get a handle on what relies on what and why.
Your example is ServiceLocator. There is always a ServiceLocator somewhere. I would say the key is to understanding why you would use it directly and why ideally you might not have to.
The key concept is the dependency inversion principal. Dependency injection and inversion of control frameworks are tools that facilitate application of the principal. Ideally you want your objects constructor parameters to be interface definitions which will be resolved at object creation time.
If you are using modern tools, such as asp.net MVC then you have access to what is called the composition root which is the entry point of the application. In MVC it's controller. Since you have access to the composition root you don't need to use ServiceLocator because injection is driven from the top for you by your IOC framework which you would have registered and setup. Basically your controller has constructors parameters like ISomeService which is registered with IOC and injected automatically when the controller instance is created. If the ISomeService had some dependencies they would also be in the constructor as ISomeUtility, and so forth as your objects get deeper and deeper. This is ideal and you would never have need to use the ServiceLocator to resolve an object.
If you were in a situation using technology that doesn't grant you access to the root or if you were wanting to start using an IOC framework in an application that didn't have one and you were adding it for the first time then you may find you can't get to the composition root. It could be a limitation of the framework or the quality of the code. In these cases you have to use the ServiceLocator or directly create the object yourself. In these cases using the ServiceLocator is OK and is better than creating that object yourself.
Currently I'm trying to understand dependency injection better and I'm using asp.net MVC to work with it. You might see some other related questions from me ;)
Alright, I'll start with an example controller (of an example Contacts Manager asp.net MVC application)
public class ContactsController{
ContactsManagerDb _db;
public ContactsController(){
_db = ContactsManagerDb();
}
//...Actions here
}
Allright, awesome that's working. My actions can all use the database for CRUD actions. Now I've decided I wanted to add unit testing, and I've added another contructor to mock a database
public class ContactsController{
IContactsManagerDb _db;
public ContactsController(){
_db = ContactsManagerDb();
}
public ContactsController(IContactsManagerDb db){
_db = db;
}
//...Actions here
}
Awesome, that's working to, in my unit tests I can create my own implementation of the IContactsManagerDb and unit test my controller.
Now, people usually make the following decision (and here is my actual question), get rid of the empty controller, and use dependency injection to define what implementation to use.
So using StructureMap I've added the following injection rule:
x.For<IContactsManagerDb>().Use<ContactsManagerDb>();
And ofcourse in my Testing Project I'm using a different IContactsManagerDb implementation.
x.For<IContactsManagerDb>().Use<MyTestingContactsManagerDb>();
But my question is, **What problem have I solved or what have I simplified by using dependency injection in this specific case"
I fail to see any practical use of it now, I understand the HOW but not the WHY? What's the use of this? Can anyone add to this project perhaps, make an example how this is more practical and useful?
The first example is not unit testable, so it is not good as it is creating a strong coupling between the different layers of your application and makes them less reusable. The second example is called poor man dependency injection. It's also discussed here.
What is wrong with poor man dependency injection is that the code is not autodocumenting. It doesn't state its intent to the consumer. A consumer sees this code and he could easily call the default constructor without passing any argument, whereas if there was no default constructor it would have immediately been clear that this class absolutely requires some contract to be passed to its constructor in order to function normally. And it is really not to the class to decide which specific implementation to choose. It is up to the consumer of this class.
Dependency injection is useful for 3 main reasons :
It is a method of decoupling interfaces and implementations.
It is good for reducing the amount of boiler plate / factory methods in an application.
It increases the modularity of packages.
As an example - consider the Unit test which required access to a class, defined as an interface. In many cases, a unit test for an interface would have to invoke implementations of that interface -- thus if an implementation changed, so would the unit test. However, with DI, you could "inject" an interface's implementation at run time into a unit test using the injection API - so that changes to implementations only have to be handled by the injection framework, not by individual classes that use those implementations.
Another example is in the web world : Consider the coupling between service providers and service definitions. If a particular component needs access to a service - it is better to design to the interface than to a particular implementation of that service. Injection enables such design, again, by allowing you to dynamically add dependencies by referencing your injection framework.
Thus, the various couplings of classes to one another are moved out of factories and individual classes, and dealt with in a uniform, abstract, reusable, and easily-maintained manner when one has a good DI framework. The best tutorials on DI that I have seen are on Google's Guice tutorials, available on YouTube. Although these are not the same as your particular technology, the principles are identical.
First, your example won't compile. var _db; is not a valid statement because the type of the variable has to be inferred at declaration.
You could do var _db = new ContactsManagerDb();, but then your second constructor won't compile because you're trying to assign an IContactsManagerDb to an instance of ContactsManagerDb.
You could change it to IContactsManagerDb _db;, and then make sure that ContactsManagerDb derives from IContactsManagerDb, but then that makes your first constructor irrelvant. You have to have the constructor that takes the interface argument anyways, so why not just use it all the time?
Dependency Injection is all about removing dependancies from the classes themselves. ContactsController doesn't need to know about ContactsManagerDb in order to use IContactsManagerDb to access the Contacts Manager.
I've been using IoC (mostly Unity) and Dependency Injection in .NET for some time now and I really like the pattern as a way to encourage creation of software classes with loose coupling and which should be easier to isolate for testing.
The approach I generally try to stick to is "Nikola's Five Laws of IoC" - in particular not injecting the container itself and only using constructor injection so that you can clearly see all the dependencies of a class from its constructor signature. Nikola does have an account on here but I'm not sure if he is still active.
Anyway, when I end up either violating one of the other laws or generally ending up with something that doesn't feel or look right, I have to question whether I'm missing something, could do it better, or simply shouldn't be using IoC for certain cases. With that in mind here are a few examples of this and I'd be grateful for any pointers or further discussion on these:
Classes with too many dependencies. ("Any class having more then 3 dependencies should be questioned for SRP violation"). I know this one comes up a lot in dependency injection questions but after reading these I still don't have any Eureka moment that solves my problems:
a) In a large application I invariably find I need 3 dependencies just to access infrastructure (examples - logging, configuration, persistence) before I get to the specific dependencies needed for the class to get its (hopefully single responsibility) job done. I'm aware of the approach that would refactor and wrap such groups of dependencies into a single one, but I often find this becomes simply a facade for several other services rather than having any true responsibility of its own. Can certain infrastructure dependencies be ignored in the context of this rule, provided the class is deemed to still have a single responsibility?
b) Refactoring can add to this problem. Consider the fairly common task of breaking apart a class that has become a bit big - you move one area of functionality into a new class and the first class becomes dependent on it. Assuming the first class still needs all the dependencies it had before, it now has one extra dependency. In this case I probably don't mind that this dependency is more tightly coupled, but its still neater to have the container provide it (as oppose to using new ...()), which it can do even without the new dependency having its own interface.
c) In a one specific example I have a class responsible for running various different functions through the system every few minutes. As all the functions rightly belong in different areas, this class ends up with many dependencies just to be able to execute each function. I'm guessing in this case other approaches, possibly involving events, should be considered but so far I haven't tried to do it because I want to co-ordinate the order the tasks are run and in some cases apply logic involving outcomes along the way.
Once I'm using IoC within an application it seems like almost every class I create that is used by another class ends up being registered in and/or injected by the container. Is this the expected outcome or should some classes have nothing to do with IoC? The alternative of just having something new'd up within the code just looks like a code smell since its then tightly coupled. This is kind of related to 1b above too.
I have all my container initialisation done at application startup, registering types for each interface in the system. Some are deliberately single instance lifecycles where others can be new instance each time they are resolved. However, since the latter are dependencies of the former, in practice they become a single instance too since they are only resolved once - at construction time of the single instance. In many cases this doesn't matter, but in some cases I really want a different instance each time I do an operation, so rather than be able to make use of the built in container functionality, I'm forced to either i) have a factory dependency instead so I can force this behaviour or ii) pass in the container so I can resolve each time. Both of these approaches are frowned upon in Nikola's guidance but I see i) as the lesser of two evils and I do use it in some cases.
In a large application I invariably find I need 3 dependencies just to access infrastructure (examples - logging, configuration, persistence)
imho infrastructure is not dependencies. I have no problem using a servicelocator for getting a logger (private ILogger _logger = LogManager.GetLogger()).
However, persistence is not infrastructure in my point of view. It's a dependency. Break your class into smaller parts.
Refactoring can add to this problem.
Of course. You will get more dependencies until you have successfully refactored all classes. Just hang in there and continue refactoring.
Do create interfaces in a separate project (Separated interface pattern) instead of adding dependencies to classes.
In a one specific example I have a class responsible for running various different functions through the system every few minutes. As all the functions rightly belong in different areas, this class ends up with many dependencies just to be able to execute each function.
Then you are taking the wrong approach. The task runner should not have a dependency on all tasks that should run, it should be the other way around. All tasks should register in the runner.
Once I'm using IoC within an application it seems like almost every class I create that is used by another class ends up being registered in and/or injected by the container.*
I register everything but business objects, DTOs etc in my container.
I have all my container initialisation done at application startup, registering types for each interface in the system. Some are deliberately single instance lifecycles where others can be new instance each time they are resolved. However, since the latter are dependencies of the former, in practice they become a single instance too since they are only resolved once - at construction time of the single instance.
Don't mix lifetimes if you can avoid it. Or don't take in short lived dependencies. In this case you could use a simple messaging solution to update the single instances.
You might want to read my guidelines.
Let me answer question 3. Having a singletons depend on a transient is a problem that container profilers try to detect and warn about. Services should only depend on other services that have a lifetime that is greater than or equals to that of their own. Injecting a factory interface or delegate to solve this is in general a good solution, and passing in the container itself is a bad solution, since you end up with the Service Locator anti-pattern.
Instead of injecting a factory, you can solve this by implementing a proxy. Here's an example:
public interface ITransientDependency
{
void SomeAction();
}
public class Implementation : ITransientDependency
{
public SomeAction() { ... }
}
Using this definition, you can define a proxy class in the Composition Root based on the ITransientDependency:
public class TransientDependencyProxy<T> : ITransientDependency
where T : ITransientDependency
{
private readonly UnityContainer container;
public TransientDependencyProxy(UnityContainer container)
{
this.container = container;
}
public SomeAction()
{
this.container.Resolve<T>().SomeAction();
}
}
Now you can register this TransientDependencyProxy<T> as singleton:
container.RegisterType<ITransientDependency,
TransientDependencyProxy<Implementation>>(
new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
While it is registered as singleton, it will still act as a transient, since it will forward its calls to a transient implementation.
This way you can completely hide that the ITransientDependency needs to be a transient from the rest of the application.
If you need this behavior for many different service types, it will get cumbersome to define proxies for each and everyone of them. In that case you could try Unity's interception functionality. You can define a single interceptor that allows you to do this for a wide range of service types.