I've recently been dabbling a bit with IOC Containers (LightInject in my case).
I've been reading that you should only need to use the container ONCE, on startup, and no where else. This is what I'm struggling to understand. If I can only reference the container in a bootstrap/startup method, how is it possible to resolve what I need, elswhere in the project, or at runtime if the class depends on user input.
So In my Traditional Windows Forms App, on Form Load Say, I would Bootstrap Lightinject as per the below code. It's only an arbitrary example, it's more the premise I need to get my head around.
I might be missing something here entirely, or just not getting it. But how am i supposed to resolve dependancies, If i can't use/not supposed to reference or use Container.GetInstance/Resolve/{Choose IOC Syntax Here}, and only in the composition root.
For Instance, Say I have two buttons and a TextBox on my form. The first button gets me an ILoader (below code), and the second button loads up a file viewer (ILoader, below code), whose file name is what is entered into the textbox on the winform.
Without An IOC Container I would do the following (let's just assume its put in the click event)
Button 1 Click Event :
ISplitText MyStringFunc = new WhateverImplementsIt();
Button 2 (gets the file reader based on textbox input)
ILoader MyLoader = new FileReaderImplementation(TextBox1.Text);
Using LightInject, I'm surely compelled to do the following:
Button1 Click:
ISplitText Splitter = Container.GetInstance<ISplitText>();
Button 2 Click
var LoaderFunc = Container.GetInstance<Func<string, ILoader>>();
ILoader l2 = LoaderFunc(TextBox1.Text);
Am I Incorrect? In A large project I would have Container.GetInstance, peppered all over the place, in the main form file and elsewhere surely, so how can i only reference the container in ONLY 1 spot, in the form of bootstrap, am i missing a magic piece of the puzzle?
In all the sample apps I have seen it's all done in one simple console app, in the Main function. All these apps follow the format of:
Container = new Container();
Container.Register<IFoo,Foo>();
Container.Register<IBar,Bar();
var Resolved = Container.GetInstance<IFoo>();
Well, I understand all that, and it's extremely simple. It's once you start adding a bit of complexity to the app itself, I'm lost as to how to get the instances without making the Container itself public, or static, or accessible in some way,shape or form and then calling Container.GetInstance in a million places (which apparently, is a big no no). PLEASE HELP!
Cheers,
Chud
PS - I am not concerned about "abstracting the container" itself. so would prefer to only focus on increasing my understanding of the above.
public class BootStrapIOC
{
public ServiceContainer Container;
public BootStrapIOC(ServiceContainer container)
{
Container = container;
}
public void Start()
{
Container.Register<ISplitText, StringUtil>();
Container.Register<string, ILoader>((factory, value) => new FileViewByFileName(value));
}
}
//HUH? How can i NOT use the container??, in this case in the button_click
ILoader Loader = Container.GetInstance<Func<string, ILoader>>();
ILoader l2 = Loader(TextBox1.Text);
ISplitText Splitter = Container.GetInstance<ISplitText>();
EDIT #1
OK, so, after re-reading the comments and looking at a few more examples on the interweb, I think I may finally understand it. The issue was (I think) is that i wasn't thinking "higher level" enough. I was trying to resolve my dependancies in my winforms application, AFTER the form had already been constructed,and in the form itself. When in reality, it's too late by then. I wasn't viewing the "form itself" as just another object, which needed it's dependencies injected into it.
So I bootstrap now in my Program.cs:
static class Program
{
private static ServiceContainer Container;
/// <summary>
/// The main entry point for the application.
/// </summary>
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
Container = new ServiceContainer();
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
BootStrapIOC Strap = new BootStrapIOC(Container);
Strap.Start();
//This magic line resolves EVERYTHING for me required by the Form
var form = Container.GetInstance<Form1>();
Application.Run(form);
//Application.Run(new Form1());
}
}
My question now is, Is my line of thinking now correct in terms of winforms. It seems to make more sense, changing my approach to "higher up" the chain and resolving from Program.cs??
Secondly, And I'm not sure if this calls for a new question altogether, please advise as I am an SO noob.
How would I setup a factory to return the correct instance of an object? One of the original comments indicated that that would be a usage in this scenario. Let's use a contrived example.
Where I needed an object, but don't know which object until run time/user input.
My Idea:
BootStrap
Container.Register();
Factory Interface and Implementation:
Let's put some optional parameters in also, as I want to know if this is the correct/best way to do it?
public interface IFileViewerFactory
{
ILoader GetFileViewer(string FileName, string Directory = null, bool CreatingDirectory = false);
}
public class FileViewerFactory:IFileViewerFactory
{
public FileViewerFactory() { }
public ILoader GetFileViewer(string FileName, string Directory = null, bool CreatingDirectory = false)
{
if (CreatingDirectory == false)
{
if (Directory == null)
return new FileViewByFileName(FileName);
else
return new FileViewByDirectoryName(Directory, FileName);
}
else
return new FileViewByDirectoryNameCreateDirectoryOptional(Directory, FileName, CreatingDirectory);
}
}
Form:
public IFileViewerFactory FileViewerFactory { get; set; }
Button Click:
ILoader FileLoader = FileViewerFactory.GetFileViewer(TxtBoxFileName.Text);
Or:
ILoader FileLoader = FileViewerFacotry.GetFileViewer(TxtBoxFileName.Text,TxtBoxDirectory.Text);
So to finish off, my questions are:
Is my new way of "higher level" thinking, and bootstrapping from Program.cs now correct
How Can I handle optional parameters in LightInject
Is How I have setup my factory the correct way to do it?
Let's forget about the Fugliness of the factory and just try to work on the mechanics of the questions :)
I know it's a bit late to answer a question that is over a year old but let me try.
The issue here is that you don't want your container to go out anywhere else than your Composition Root. In a complex solution consisting of mutliple assembiles, this means the container itself is only referenced by the topmost assembly (where the Composition Root is).
But the application stack is usually complex, you possibly have multiple assembiles and still, your depencencies should be resolves across the application.
Historically, one of the possible approaches was the Service Locator pattern. The locator goes down to the very bottom of the stack and from there, it offers a service that resolves dependencies. Thus, it's available anywhere up the stack.
This approach has two drawbacks, first is that your container is referenced at the very bottom of the stack and even if you circuvment this you still have your locator referenced everywhere. The latter could be painful in a large app as you possibly have some standalone assembiles that you don't want to be forced to reference your locator (or anything else).
The ultimate solution is called the Local Factory (aka Dependency Resolver) and it takes care of creating just few of its dependand services. The trick is then to have multiple local factories across your app.
A typical setup is like this. Suppose there's an assembly, call it A, that the client will use to obtain an instance of IServiceA. The assembly contains only the two:
interface (obligation) of the service - IServiceA
the local factory clients will use to obtain instances of the service
And that's all, no other references, no containers. There's even no implementation at this point yet. The trick here is to make the factory open for the actual provider - in a sense that the factory doesn't even yet know how to create instances - it's the Composition Root that will tell it.
// Assembly A
public interface IServiceA
{
...
}
public class ServiceAFactory
{
private static Func<IServiceA> _provider;
public static void SetProvider( Func<IServiceA> provider )
{
_provider = provider;
}
public IServiceA Create()
{
return _provider();
}
}
the provider here has a functional contract but it could also be expressed as an interface
And that's all, although there's no implementation in the factory at the moment, the client code is suddenly very stable:
// client code to obtain IServiceA
var serviceA = new ServiceAFactory().Create();
Note again how self-contained this assembly A is. It has no other references, still, it offers a clean way to obtain instances of your service. Other assemblies can reference this assembly with no other additional references.
Then comes the Composition Root.
At the very top of your stack, your main assembly references the assembly A and some other assembly, let's call it AImpl that contains a possible implementation of the service interface.
technically the implementation of the service could be in the very same assembly the interface is but it only makes things easier
The Composition Root creates the provider of the factory by delegating a factory method down the stack, to the assembly A
// Composition Root in the top level module
// Both assemblies
// * A that contains IServiceA
// * AImpl that contains an implementation, ServiceAImpl
// are referenced here
public void CompositionRoot()
{
ServiceAFactory.SetProvider( () =>
{
return new ServiceAImpl();
} );
}
From now on, the provider is set up and all the client code down the stack that uses the factory, can succesfully obtain instances.
The Composition Root provides all other implementations of other local factories, as well. There are multiple setups then in the Composition Root:
SomeLocalFactoryFromAssemblyA.SetProvider( ... );
AnotherLocalFactoryFromAssemblyB.SetProvider( .... );
...
Where is your container then?
Well, the container is just one possible implementation of the provider. It only helps rather than spoils. Note however that you don't even have to use it, it's a choice rather than obligation.
public void CompositionRoot()
{
var container = new MyFavouriteContainer();
container.Register<IServiceA, ServiceAImpl>(); // create my registrations
ServiceAFactory.SetProvider( () =>
{
// this advanced provider uses the container
// this means the implementation, the ServiceAImpl,
// can have possible further dependencies that will be
// resolved by the container
container.Resolve<IServiceA>();
} );
}
This is the most clean setup I am aware of. It has all desired features:
it separates concerns in a clean way
the client doesn't really need any other dependencies than the service contract and the factory
the client doesn't even know there is or will be a container, in fact the client doesn't care
in a test environment, providers can easily be setup without any container, to provide static mocks of your services
the Composition Root is a real composer here - it's the only place in your code where the three: interfaces, implementations and the container, meet together
Related
I have layered asp.net MVC application.
In the service layer, I have a container to register dependencies. e.g:
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
container.RegisterType<ISomething, Something>();
}
Based on the design, we need to have a mock implementation of the
classes if the user decided to open the application for testing purpose.
So, I came up with an Idea like
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
container.RegisterType<ISomething, Something>();
container.RegisterType<ISomething, SomethingMock>();
}
If I use a flag somewhere to indicate whether or not system runs at testing mode, how can I make a decision on which dependency to resolve at the runtime?
If it is not an elegant solution, what could be the alternative?
If I use a flag somewhere to indicate whether or not system runs at testing mode, how can I make a decision on which dependency to resolve at the runtime?
You should not change the structure of your object graph based on runtime decisions. This is very much related to the anti-pattern of injecting runtime data into components.
In case you require to switch implementations based on runtime conditions (meaning: the value might change from request to request), the solution is to create a proxy class that implements ISomething and wraps the two ISomething implementations (this article shows some examples of proxy implementations). When ISomething.Method is called, it can forward the call to the right implementation, based on the runtime condition that it determines at that point.
In your case however, you are most likely not talking about runtime conditions, but about a configuration value. Configuration values don't change during the lifetime of the application. Only after a restart (or redeploy) you would typically see a change of value.
That means that you can simply read the configuration value at startup and decide at that point which implementation should be registered:
if (bool.Parse(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["Production"]))
{
container.RegisterType<ISomething, Something>();
}
else
{
container.RegisterType<ISomething, SomethingMock>();
}
While I fully support Stevens answer and his considerations, there is technically a way to do what you intended.
You can use named registration:
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
container.RegisterType<ISomething, Something>();
container.RegisterType<ISomething, SomethingMock>("SomethingMock");
}
and then use a string parameter to resolve it:
string s= "";
var mySomething = container.Resolve<ISomething>(s); // will return standard implementation
s = "SomethingMock"
var mySomething = container.Resolve<ISomething>(s); // will return mock implementation
you would need to intercept when asp wants to resolve ISomething.
For reference see
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff660923%28v=pandp.20%29.aspx
Now it's up to you which way you go.
I'm currently working on a WinForms system (I know) where there's a lot of Constructor Injection when creating forms, but if those forms/views need to open another form, I find the DI container has been injected too so that we can locate the implementation of the desired view interface at runtime. e.g.
public partial class MyView : Form, IMyView
{
private readonly IDIContainer _container;
public MyView(IDIContainer container)
{
InitializeComponent();
_container = container;
}
public OpenDialogClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var dialog = container.Resolve<IDialogView>();
dialog.ShowDialog(this);
}
}
I'm aware that this is basically using the container as a service locator. I've been repeatedly told that this is considered an anti-pattern so I'd like to avoid this usage.
I could probably inject the view as part of the constructor like this :
public partial class MyView : Form, IMyView
{
private readonly IDialogView _dialog;
public MyView(IDialogView dialog)
{
InitializeComponent();
_dialog = dialog;
}
public OpenDialogClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
dialog.ShowDialog(this);
}
}
But what if the dialog view is quite expensive to instantiate?
It's been suggested that we create some kind of form factory which internally uses the DI container, but to me this seems like simply creating a wrapper around another service locator.
I know that at some point, something has to know how to create an IDialogView, so I'm thinking that either it's resolved when the composite root is created (probably not ideal if there are many forms and some or all are expensive to create), or the composite root itself has a way to resolve the dependency. In which case the composite root has to have a service-locator-like dependency? But then how would child forms create dialogs like this? Would they call up to the composite via, say, events, to open dialogs like this?
One particular problem I keep running up against is that the container is almost impossible to mock easily. This is partly what keeps me thinking about the form factory idea, even though it would just be a wrapper around the container. Is that a sensible reason?
Have I thought myself into a knot? Is there a simple way through this? Or do I just cut the knot and find something that works for me?
Or do I just cut the knot and find something that works for me?
Factory class:
public interface IDialogFactory {
IDialogView CreateNew();
}
// Implementation
sealed class DialogFactory: IDialogFactory {
public IDialogView CreateNew() {
return new DialogImpl();
}
}
// or singleton...
sealed class SingleDialogFactory: IDialogFactory {
private IDialogView dialog;
public IDialogView CreateNew() {
if (dialog == null) {
dialog = new DialogImpl();
}
return dialog;
}
}
Your code:
public partial class MyView : Form, IMyView {
private readonly IDialogFactory factory;
public MyView(IDialogFactory factory) {
InitializeComponent();
//assert(factory != null);
this.factory = factory;
}
public OpenDialogClick(object sender, EventArgs e) {
using (var dialog = this.factory.CreateNew()) {
dialog.ShowDialog(this);
}
}
}
Registration with SimpleInjector
container.RegisterSingle<IDialogFactory, DialogFactory>();
or using singleton version
container.RegisterSingle<IDialogFactory, SingleDialogFactory>();
container.RegisterSingle<IMyView, MyView>();
A local factory, satisfied with an implementation that uses the container and set up in the composition root is not a service locator, it is a dependency resolver.
The difference is as follows: the locator is defined and satisfied somewhere near the definition of the container. In a separate project, to use the locator, you need an external reference to the container infrastructure. This causes the project to rely on external dependency (the locator).
On the other hand, the dependency resolver is local to the project. It is used to satisfy dependencies in its close neighbourhood but it doesn't depend on anything external.
The composition root should not be used to resolve actual specific dependencies such as the one you are concerned about. Instead, the compositon root should set up implementations of all these local dependency resolvers that are used throughout the application. The more local resolver, the better - the MVC's constructor factory is a good example. On the other hand, WebAPI's resolver handles quite few of different services and it is still a good resolver - it is local in the webapi infrastructure, it doesn't depend on anything (rather - other webapi services depend on it) and it can be implemented in any possible way and set up in the Composition Root.
Some time ago I wrote a blog entry about it
http://www.wiktorzychla.com/2012/12/di-factories-and-composition-root.html
There you will find your issue discussed and an example of how you set up a factory aka resolver.
You definitely do not want to pass your DI container around your application. Your DI container should only be part of your Composition Root. You could, however, have a factory that uses the DI container within the Composition Root. So if Program.cs is where you are wiring everything up, you could simply define that factory class there.
WinForms was not designed with DI in mind; forms are generated and therefore need default constructors. This may or may not be an issue depending on which DI container you use.
I think in this case, the pain of using constructor injection in WinForms is greater than the pain of any pitfalls you may encounter while using a service locator. There's no shame in declaring a static method in your Composition Root (Program.cs) that wraps a call to your DI container to resolve your references.
I know this problem very well. Everything I learned about solution to this (and I learned A LOT) is more or less camouflaging service locator.
Went off on an interesting tangent today after reading this article on command handler decoration. I wanted to see if I could implement the pattern using Unity instead of SimpleInjector, and so far it is proving extremely difficult.
The first thing I had to do was install UnityAutoRegistration to resolve the open generic ICommandHandler<TCommand> interface. Current solution for that aspect is as follows:
Container = new UnityContainer().LoadConfiguration();
Container.ConfigureAutoRegistration()
.ExcludeSystemAssemblies()
.Include(type => type.ImplementsOpenGeneric(typeof(ICommandHandler<>)),
(t, c) => c.RegisterType(typeof(ICommandHandler<>), t)
)
.ApplyAutoRegistration()
;
This works for the first part, resolving any single ICommandHandler<TCommand>. What's proven frustrating so far is implementing a decoration handler. As soon as I add a second ICommandHandler<TCommand> as a decorator, Unity throws a StackOverflowException. I don't know enough about Unity internals, but I'm guessing this is because it can't figure out which instance to resolve to -- the command handler, or the command handler decorator -- since both implement the ICommandHandler<TCommand> interface.
Googling around led me first to this article, which explains how to do it in what I would consider a brute force method. I also found these related pages but none is a complete solution to my problem (and I am too ignorant to figure it out for myself).
I then found this article, which seems to address my same concerns. However beefy's solution does not account for dealing with open generics. Currently most of our dependencies are loaded from a unity section in the .config file, so I don't want to write a ton of compiled code for each handler or decorator. It seems like having some kind of UnityContainerExtension and DecoratorBuildStrategy is the right way to go, but I can't figure it out. I have been playing with beefy's code for a little while now, and am completely stuck. My attempts to modify his code to account for generics has led to BadImageFormatExceptions (An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8007000B)).
I like the idea of doing this to implement the decorator chaining, because it's short, and there is only 1 line per concern:
var container = new Container();
// Go look in all assemblies and register all implementations
// of ICommandHandler<T> by their closed interface:
container.RegisterManyForOpenGeneric(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies());
// Decorate each returned ICommandHandler<T> object with an
// TransactionCommandHandlerDecorator<T>.
container.RegisterDecorator(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
typeof(TransactionCommandHandlerDecorator<>));
// Decorate each returned ICommandHandler<T> object with an
// DeadlockRetryCommandHandlerDecorator<T>.
container.RegisterDecorator(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
typeof(DeadlockRetryCommandHandlerDecorator<>));
...but I don't want to change my container from Unity to Simple Injector if I don't have to.
SO my question is how could I go about implementing open generic decorator chaining using unity (plus UnityAutoRegistration)?
This would be the equivalent in Unity:
// Go look in all assemblies and register all implementa-
// tions of ICommandHandler<T> by their closed interface:
var container = new UnityContainer();
var handlerRegistrations =
from assembly in AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies()
from implementation in assembly.GetExportedTypes()
where !implementation.IsAbstract
where !implementation.ContainsGenericParameters
let services =
from iface in implementation.GetInterfaces()
where iface.IsGenericType
where iface.GetGenericTypeDefinition() ==
typeof(ICommandHandler<>)
select iface
from service in services
select new { service, implementation };
foreach (var registration in handlerRegistrations)
{
container.RegisterType(registration.service,
registration.implementation, "Inner1");
}
// Decorate each returned ICommandHandler<T> object with an
// TransactionCommandHandlerDecorator<T>.
container.RegisterType(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
typeof(TransactionCommandHandlerDecorator<>),
"Inner2",
InjectionConstructor(new ResolvedParameter(
typeof(ICommandHandler<>), "Inner1")));
// Decorate each returned ICommandHandler<T> object with an
// DeadlockRetryCommandHandlerDecorator<T>.
container.RegisterType(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
typeof(DeadlockRetryCommandHandlerDecorator<>),
InjectionConstructor(new ResolvedParameter(
typeof(ICommandHandler<>), "Inner2")));
I hope I understand the problem correctly and I was curious to try and get this to work and I'm by no means an expert on Unity but I was thinking of a solution that is a little easier to implement and would also be easier to do with a different container. It would seem like the only way to support the open generic as well as the other types is to have 2 separate containers (1 for the open generic) and one for your command handlers, this might not be the best way but it worked with Unity and I'm assuming will also be easier with others.
So I came up with this:
I created the containers as follows (you can use your convention approach still im sure for the handler container)
var container = new UnityContainer();
var container2 = new UnityContainer();
container2.RegisterType(typeof(ICommandHandler<QueryCommand>),
typeof(QueryCommandHandler));
container.RegisterInstance("Handlers", container2);
container.RegisterInstance(container);
container.RegisterType(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
typeof(DecoratedHandler<>));
You see container 2 containing the Handlers as a named instance.
Then I just created a Generic base decorator class as per the requirement of the pattern:
public class DecoratorCommandHandler<TCommand>
: ICommandHandler<TCommand>
{
private ICommandHandler<TCommand> inner;
public DecoratorCommandHandler(
ICommandHandler<TCommand> inner)
{
this.inner = inner;
}
public virtual void Handle(TCommand command)
{
this.inner.Handle(command);
}
}
Second I created another Generic Handler that would wrap all the Decorations you want to do for your solution, here you will add decorating for TryCatch/Caching/Transactions or whatever else you want to apply to each command handler:
public class DecoratedHandler<TCommand>
: DecoratorCommandHandler<TCommand>
{
public DecoratedHandler(UnityContainer container)
: base(BuildInner(container))
{
}
private static ICommandHandler<TCommand> BuildInner(
UnityContainer container)
{
var handlerContainer =
container.Resolve<UnityContainer>("Handlers");
var commandHandler =
handlerContainer.Resolve<ICommandHandler<TCommand>>();
return new TryCatchCommandHandler<TCommand>(commandHandler);
}
}
You will notice that the first inner resolves the actual command handler as per the one you requested like QueryCommandHandler, UpdateCommandHandler, ExecuteCommandHandler or whatever one dealing with specifics. And then gets wrapped with all the decorators you want common to all of them.
Then I was able to resolve the correct handler, decorated in the correct way:
ICommandHandler<QueryCommand> handler =
container.Resolve<ICommandHandler<QueryCommand>>();
var cmd = new QueryCommand();
handler.Handle(cmd);
Hope this helps
I've recently started using Unity for dependency injections in .net.
I was under the impression that a Unity Container would most likely be a singleton or static member of a class. I saw another developer using it in a request handler that will receive a lot of traffic.
Is there some magic happening that keeps the cost low for creating a new Unity Container every time, or should this code be re-factored to only create the Unity container once?
This code is part of the implementing class of a .svc Service.
public string DoSomeWork(Request request)
{
var container = new UnityContainer().LoadConfiguration("MyContainer");
var handler = container.Resolve<RequestHandler>();
return handler.Handle(request);
}
Not 100% sure with Unity, but with most IoC containers, the creation of the container and especially the loading of container configuration is a reasonably expensive operation.
I have to question why this developer is utilizing the container in this manner however. Ideally the IoC container shouldn't even be a static or singleton object - it should be instantiated only to resolve the top level object of your dependency tree, and the rest of the objects in your application should be constructed automatically through dependency injection. In the case of your example, the class containing that method ideally would have the RequestHandler (ideally an interface of this) injected into it through the constructor so that class does not need to know about the IoC container.
This is not the right way to use an IOC container - basically your are using it as a service locator, but this will cause dependencies to the IOC container to be sprinkled all over the code base.
What you should do is have one central spot in your codebase where all dependencies are resolved and then use dependency injection (DI) to propagate the resolved concrete classes down the chain, i.e via constructor injection. So your class really should look something like this:
public class Foo
{
private readonly IRequestHandler _handler;
public Foo(IRequestHandler handler)
{
_handler = handler;
}
public string DoSomeWork(Request request)
{
return _handler.Handle(request);
}
}
I would like to just markup a property with an attribute [DoInjection] and have unity do the injection. I don't want to have to use prop = Unity.Resolve(type). Thats a pain and messy. Does unity provide attributes to do this or do I have to build my own?
Edit: register in App.Main
ISessionFactory sf = new SessionFactory();
container.RegisterType<IRepository, CustomerRepository>(new InjectionConstructor(sf.CurrentUoW));
container.RegisterInstance<IUnitOfWork>(sf.CurrentUoW);
Using [Dependancy] on IUnitOfWork propery in ClassX other class but it's always null. Do I need to build ClassX instance using Unity to get this to work? It looks like I do have to. I don't like that.
Unity has a DependencyAttribute you can use for this:
public class MyObject
{
private SomeOtherObject _dependentObject;
[Dependency]
public SomeOtherObject DependentObject
{
get { return _dependentObject; }
set { _dependentObject = value; }
}
}
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff650198.aspx
Based on your question, it sounds like you might be trying to use Unity in the wrong spot and your design sense was telling you it didn't feel right. You should only see Unity where you bootstrap your application. That's your Main method in a console app or Global.asax in a web or wcf app. The idea is to keep relying on dependencies all the way up the chain until you get to where you bootstrap and resolve just that one top level object using your IoC container. In a console app, I do this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var container = new UnityContainer())
{
container
.AddExtension(new ConfigureForConsole(args))
.Resolve<MyApplication>()
.Execute();
}
}
}
http://www.agileatwork.com/console-application-with-ioc/
In this case, MyApplication is my top level object (it doesn't need to be an interface here). The ConfigureForConsole is just a one-off custom container extension that has all the RegisterType lines in there. Alternatively you could initialize the container from App.Config here. The idea though is that your Main method has almost nothing in it. Another benefit of this approach is that it makes your code more portable. I find that console apps usually turn into windows services and keeping things clean here makes that transition pretty painless.