Develop Reference

NET Core dependency injection - resolve service or configuration based on dependent class

Assuming this use case:
You've got two classes X and Y that depends on a configuration of type Config
public class X
{
public X(IOptions<Config> config)
{
}
}
public class Y
{
public Y(IOptions<Config> config)
{
}
}
Now, you want to create each an instance of X and Y, but with different configurations. What would be the right way to register this?
From everything I read, the only way to solve this would be by adding some sort of "naming" for the different configuration instances and resolve them via a custom resolver:
public delegate Config ServiceResolver(string key);
services.AddTransient<ServiceResolver>(serviceProvider => key =>
{
switch (key)
{
case "A":
return ... (whatever to get the first config instance);
case "B":
return ... (whatever to get the second config instance);
default:
throw new KeyNotFoundException();
}
});
However, this means that the implementation of each X and Y must know about details about how to get the configurations:
They must know the correct name (A or B) and
they must know the ConfigResolver type, which is only an implementation detail/helper class for the sake of dependency injection.
This problem hits even harder if you need to go through several stages of dependencies, like
Config (A) Config (B)
| |
v v
Service Service
| |
v v
X Y
My feeling is, there should be a better way to solve this.
Like some form of receipent dependent service factory:
Host.CreateDefaultBuilder(args).ConfigureServices((context, services) => {
services.Configure<Config>(context.Configuration.GetSection("ConfigA")).For<X>();
services.Configure<Config>(context.Configuration.GetSection("ConfigB")).For<Y>();
});
and maybe
Host.CreateDefaultBuilder(args).ConfigureServices((context, services) => {
services.AddTransient<Service>((services, receiverType) => {
if(receiverType == typeof(X)) {
... resolve a service instance;
}
else {
... resolve some other service instance;
}
});
});
So, is there just some feature I missed until now? Is my understanding of the situation totaly misguided? Or is this really a feature that should be, but has not been added until now?
EDIT:
To make my point clearer: Just assume that X and Y are classes of a third-party library. Their constructors signature cannot be changed by you, as you don't have access to the source code.
So, how would you set this up in a way that you can get each an instance of X with ConfigA and an instance of Y with ConfigB?
Another EDIT 2023-01-02:
Happy new year everyone :)
Seems I have to describe a bit better what's my problem. This is not constrained to IOptions/configurations, but more a general question about where to decide about which service to inject and how it is configured.
Assume I have two a congress location with 2 stages. I call them "bigStage" and "smallStage", but in the end they've got the same implementation. I also got two speakers invited, called "loadSpeaker" and "quietSpeaker", but at this moment in time I don't know which one will speak on which of the two stages.
So I decide I've got this setup:
class Stage {
public Stage(string name, ISpeaker speaker) {
...
}
}
class Speaker: ISpeaker {
public Speaker(string name) {
...
}
}
Now, at the latest time possible, I want to compose my final setup so that I've got 2 Stages (called bigStage and smallStage) and their assigned Speakers (loudSpeaker on bigStage and quietSpeaker on smallStage). This composition/assignment should completely happen in my composition root, so that no code changes have to happen in the rest of my code. How can I do that?

I suggest to use a factory for your Service:
class X {
private readonly Service _service;
public X(ServiceFactory serviceFactory) {
_service = serviceFactory.Create<X>();
}
}
class Service {
private readonly Config _config;
public Service(Config config) { _config = config; }
}
class ServiceFactory {
private readonly IConfiguration _configuration;
/* other Service dependencies would also be injected here */
public ServiceFactory(IConfiguration configuration, /* Service dependencies */) {
_configuration = configuration;
...
}
public Service Create<T>() {
return Create(typeof(T));
}
public Service Create(Type type) {
var configName = switch typeof(T) {
X => "ConfigX",
Y => "ConfigY",
default => throw new Exception()
};
var config = _configuration.GetSection(configName).Get<Config>();
return new Service(config, /* other dependencies */);
}
}
The switch statement can be replaced with a Dictionary<Type, string> or Dictionary<string, string> if you would want to export this dictionary to IConfiguration.
Getting the Config can be also cached for performance (don't forget the thread safety)

So the "trick" to all of this is... you have to piggy back onto ~something to make a decision on which one IMySomething . when you register multiple IMySomething(s).
The factory above where you switch/case on the object.TYPE....is one way.
But it is "fragile", IMHO. Or at the very last, violates the Open/Closed principle of SOLID, as you have to keep editing the code to add a new case-statement.
So I also think you want a Factory.......BUT I do not like "hard coding" the values of the switch/case statements.
So if you follow my IShipper example:
Using a Strategy and Factory Pattern with Dependency Injection
I think you want to create a
IShipperFactory
and inject the IEnumerable of "IShipper"(s).
..
Then you will use your IShipperFactory... when registering your things that need an IShipper.
This does cause a small "ripple" because you need access to the IShipperFactory....to do (later) IoC registrations.
But it would be "clean" and have good separations of concerns.
Let me pseudo code it.
public interface IShipper (from other article)
3 concretes (Usps, FedEx, Ups)
public interface IShipperFactory()
public IShipper GetAnIShipper(string key)
..
public class ShipperFactoryConcrete
(from other article, inject multiple IShippers here)
public IShipper GetAnIShipper(string key)
// look through the injected IShippers to find a match, or else throw exception.
.....
public interface IOrderProcessor
..
public class WestCoastOrderProcessor : IOrderProcessor
/* c-stor */
public WestCoastOrderProcessor(IShipper aSingleShipper)
public class EastCoastOrderProcessor : IOrderProcessor
/* c-stor */
public WestCoastOrderProcessor(IShipper aSingleShipper)
........
Ok, so we decide at compile-time, we want to define the "best" IShipper for the EastCoastOrderProcessor and WestCoastOrderProcessor. (making up some kind of example here)
So need need to IoC register.
from the other article:
cont.RegisterType<IShipper, FedExShipper>(FedExShipper.FriendlyName);
cont.RegisterType<IShipper, UspsShipper>(UspsShipper.FriendlyName);
cont.RegisterType<IShipper, UpsShipper>(UpsShipper.FriendlyName);
now it gets a little "off beaten path".
See:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/53885374/214977
and
// so this is a cart-horse situation, where we need something from the IoC container.... to complete the IoC registrations.
IShipperFactory sf = services.GetRequiredService<IShipperFactory>(); // see https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/dependency-injection?view=aspnetcore-7.0#resolve-a-service-at-app-start-up
.. and now we IoC register...but we specify specific values for the constructor. please see the SOF (214977), for syntax-sugar hints. the below is definately pseduo code.....
_serviceCollection.AddSingleton<IOrderProcesor>(x =>
ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<EastCoastOrderProcessor>(x, sf.GetAnIShipper(FedExShipper.ShipperName));
);
_serviceCollection.AddSingleton<IOrderProcesor>(x =>
ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<WestCoastOrderProcessor>(x, sf.GetAnIShipper(UspsShipper.ShipperName));
);
APPEND:ONE:
Another "trick" .. if you have a code base that you cannot change is.
The "proxy design pattern":
The Proxy design pattern provides a surrogate or placeholder for
another object to control access to it.
https://www.dofactory.com/net/proxy-design-pattern
public EastCoastOrderProcessorProxy
private readonly ThirdPartyOrderProcessor innerThirdPartyOrderProcessor;
public EastCoastOrderProcessor(ThirdPartyOrderProcessor innerThirdPartyOrderProcessor)
{
this.innerThirdPartyOrderProcessor = innerThirdPartyOrderProcessor;
}
..
public WestCoastOrderProcessorProxy
private readonly ThirdPartyOrderProcessor innerThirdPartyOrderProcessor;
public EastCoastOrderProcessor(ThirdPartyOrderProcessor innerThirdPartyOrderProcessor)
{
this.innerThirdPartyOrderProcessor = innerThirdPartyOrderProcessor;
}
So while you cannot change the ThirdPartyOrderProcessor, you can write 1:N wrapper-proxies around it.

The simplest solution I can think of, without using named options inside of your service classes, is moving the selection of the configuration object from the class constructor to the composition root of the application.
This way, your service class simply receives a configuration object as a constructor parameter and it is not aware of the underlying configuration infrastructure.
The composition root, which is in charge of composing the objects which make your application, do know about the configuration infrastructure and picks the right configuration object for your services.
In order to implement this pattern, you need to define an option class as the first step. This option class is needed in order to leverage the options pattern support offered by ASP.NET core. You will only use this class at the composition root level.
public sealed class LayoutOptions
{
public const string Layout = "Layout";
public const string Basic = "Basic";
public const string Complex = "Complex";
public string Name { get; set; } = default!;
public string Color { get; set; } = default!;
public int NumberOfColumns { get; set; }
}
Then you need to define a class which represents the configuration object for your services. This is basically a strongly typed configuration object used to configure your services. This object is built strating from the options class, notice that you don't need to make it identical to the options class itself.
public sealed class LayoutConfiguration
{
public string Name { get; }
public string Color { get; }
public LayoutConfiguration(string name, string color)
{
Name = name;
Color = color;
}
}
Now you need to define your service classes. These types are configured by using the LayoutConfiguration configuration class. Each service class will be properly configured by the composition root of the application, by using the proper named options.
public interface ILayoutService
{
string GetLayoutDescription();
}
public sealed class BasicLayoutService : ILayoutService
{
private readonly LayoutConfiguration _config;
public BasicLayoutService(LayoutConfiguration config)
{
_config = config ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(config));
}
public string GetLayoutDescription() =>
$"Basic layout description. Name: '{_config.Name}' Color: '{_config.Color}'";
}
public sealed class ComplexLayoutService : ILayoutService
{
private readonly LayoutConfiguration _config;
public ComplexLayoutService(LayoutConfiguration config)
{
_config = config ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(config));
}
public string GetLayoutDescription() =>
$"Complex layout description. Name: '{_config.Name}' Color: '{_config.Color}'";
}
You can also defined a couple of controllers, that you can use to test this implementation and be user that your services are wired-up correctly by the composition root of the application:
[ApiController]
[Route("[controller]")]
public sealed class BasicLayoutController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly BasicLayoutService _basicLayoutService;
public BasicLayoutController(BasicLayoutService basicLayoutService)
{
_basicLayoutService = basicLayoutService ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(basicLayoutService));
}
[HttpGet("description")]
public string GetDescription() => _basicLayoutService.GetLayoutDescription();
}
[ApiController]
[Route("[controller]")]
public sealed class ComplexLayoutController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly ComplexLayoutService _complexLayoutService;
public ComplexLayoutController(ComplexLayoutService complexLayoutService)
{
_complexLayoutService = complexLayoutService ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(complexLayoutService));
}
[HttpGet("description")]
public string GetDescription() => _complexLayoutService.GetLayoutDescription();
}
This is the most important part. Put this registration code inside the Program.cs class (which is the composition root for an ASP.NET core 6 application):
// Configure named options
builder.Services.Configure<LayoutOptions>(
LayoutOptions.Basic,
builder.Configuration.GetSection($"{LayoutOptions.Layout}:{LayoutOptions.Basic}")
);
builder.Services.Configure<LayoutOptions>(
LayoutOptions.Complex,
builder.Configuration.GetSection($"{LayoutOptions.Layout}:{LayoutOptions.Complex}")
);
// Register the BasicLayoutService by picking the right configuration
builder
.Services
.AddScoped(serviceProvider =>
{
// Get named options
var layoutOptions = serviceProvider.GetRequiredService<IOptionsSnapshot<LayoutOptions>>();
var basicLayoutOptions = layoutOptions.Get(LayoutOptions.Basic);
// Create strongly typed configuration object from named options
var configuration = new LayoutConfiguration(
basicLayoutOptions.Name,
basicLayoutOptions.Color);
// Creates new instance of BasicLayoutService using the service provider and the configuration object
return ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<BasicLayoutService>(
serviceProvider,
configuration);
});
// Register the ComplexLayoutService by picking the right configuration
builder
.Services
.AddScoped(serviceProvider =>
{
// Get named options
var layoutOptions = serviceProvider.GetRequiredService<IOptionsSnapshot<LayoutOptions>>();
var complexLayoutOptions = layoutOptions.Get(LayoutOptions.Complex);
// Create strongly typed configuration object from named options
var configuration = new LayoutConfiguration(
complexLayoutOptions.Name,
complexLayoutOptions.Color);
// Creates new instance of ComplexLayoutService using the service provider and the configuration object
return ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<ComplexLayoutService>(
serviceProvider,
configuration);
});
You can now test this implementation. As an example, you can set the following configuration in appsettings.json:
{
"Logging": {
"LogLevel": {
"Default": "Information",
"Microsoft.AspNetCore": "Warning"
}
},
"AllowedHosts": "*",
"Layout": {
"Basic": {
"Name": "Basic Layout",
"Color": "red",
"NumberOfColumns": 2
},
"Complex": {
"Name": "Complex Layout",
"Color": "blue",
"NumberOfColumns": 3
}
}
}
If you run this application and you issue a GET request to /BasicLayout/description, you ge the following response:
Basic layout description. Name: 'Basic Layout' Color: 'red'
If you issue a GET request to /ComplexLayout/description the response you get is:
Complex layout description. Name: 'Complex Layout' Color: 'blue'
A final note on the service lifetime for BasicLayoutService and ComplexLayoutService. In my example I decided to register them as scoped services, because you may want to recompute the configuration object for them (LayoutConfiguration) for each incoming request. This is useful if your configuration may change over time. If this is not the case, you can safely register them as singleton services. That's up to you and depends on your requirements.

How to load appsettings.json inside a Static class based on deploy environment so that I can use in other class libraries

W'm working on a migration project. I need to use my appsettings in other class libraries. so after googling and stackoverflowing, I load my appsettings.json inside static class as follows:
public static class ReadAppConfig
{
private static readonly IConfiguration Root;
private static readonly ConfigurationBuilder ConfigurationBuilder;
static ReadAppConfig()
{
if (ConfigurationBuilder == null)
{
ConfigurationBuilder = new ConfigurationBuilder();
ConfigurationBuilder.SetBasePath(Directory.GetCurrentDirectory());
ConfigurationBuilder.AddJsonFile("appsettings.json", optional: true);
ConfigurationBuilder.AddJsonFile("appsettings.QA.json", optional: true);
ConfigurationBuilder.AddJsonFile("appsettings.Dev.json", optional: true);
ConfigurationBuilder.AddJsonFile("appsettings.Staging.json", optional: true);
if (Root == null)
Root = ConfigurationBuilder.Build();
}
}
public static string UserManualFile => Root.GetSection("AppSettings:SomeKey").Value;
}
So now I can get UserManualFile like ReadAppConfig.UserManualFile in other libraries.
This works fine. But it always reads from appsettings.Staging.json only. How to make this read based on deploy environment.
I cannot get IHostingEnvironment here as this is static class.
Please assist / suggest me with proper way to do this.
Thanks

There's two problems here. First, don't use a static class. Configuration is designed to be dependency injected and dependency injection is fundamentally incompatible with statics. In truth, statics are almost always the wrong approach, dependency injection or not. Second, libraries should depend only on abstractions, not concrete data/implementations.
Honestly, there's three problems and the last one is the killer here: you need IHostingEnvironment for your use case, and there's absolutely know way to get that in a static class. Game over.
There's multiple ways you could go here, but I'm going to be opinionated with what I feel is the best option. Ultimately, your libraries just need UserManualFile, it seems. As such, that is all they should depend on: a string that corresponds to the location of a user manual, presumably. So, you'll do something like:
public class SomeLibraryClass
{
private readonly string _userManualFie;
public SomeLibraryClass(string userManualFile)
{
_userManualFile = userManualFile;
}
}
This requires the least amount of knowledge and provides the greatest amount of abstraction for your library. It no longer cares where or how it gets the file location, just that it gets it.
Then, in your actual app, you'll use strongly-typed config to provide this value:
services.Configure<AppSettings>(Configuration.GetSection("AppSettings"));
...
services.AddScoped(p =>
{
var appSettings = p.GetRequiredService<IOptions<AppSettings>>();
return new SomeLibraryClass(appSettings.Value.UserManualFile);
});
Done. Now, if there's actually other stuff the library needs, you might choose to pass a custom "settings" class to the library. This class should come from the library, so that it documents what it needs. For example, in your library, you'd create a class like:
public class SomeLibrarySettings
{
public string Foo { get; set; }
public string Bar { get; set; }
// etc.
}
Then, your library class(es) would inject this:
public SomeLibraryClass(SomeLibrarySettings settings)
Finally, in your app, you can either manually compose this settings class instance or inject it. Injecting it will still require you to manually compose it, so it only makes sense to do it that way if you're going to share it between multiple classes.
Manually compose
services.AddScoped(p =>
{
var appSettings = p.GetRequiredService<IOptions<AppSettings>>();
var someLibrarySettings = new SomeLibrarySettings
{
Foo = appSettings.Value.Foo,
Bar = appSettings.Value.Bar,
// etc.
};
return SomeLibraryClass(someLibrarySettings);
});
Inject
services.AddSingleton(p =>
{
var appSettings = p.GetRequiredService<IOptions<AppSettings>>();
return new SomeLibrarySettings
{
Foo = appSettings.Value.Foo,
Bar = appSettings.Value.Bar,
// etc.
};
});
services.AddScoped<SomeLibraryClass1>();
services.AddScoped<SomeLibraryClass2>();
// etc.
Because SomeLibrarySettings is registered in the service collection, it will be automatically injected into the library classes that depend on it.
Finally, it's worth noting that because you're moving the configuration logic to where it actually belongs, you no longer need to even worry about the environment. ASP.NET Core is already set up to load the appropriate environment settings, so it just works.

Application Settings in custom class ASP.Net 5 MVC 6

Playing around with ASP.Net 5 MVC. Seen this question jumping around but not an full answer. What I want to do is have a helper class that is able to access the AppSettings. I can access it in the controller and the view but haven't figured out how to access it on my own custom class. Have startup configured like so.
public Startup(IHostingEnvironment env)
{
// Set up configuration sources.
var builder = new ConfigurationBuilder()
.AddJsonFile("config.json")
.AddJsonFile($"config.{env.EnvironmentName}.json", optional: true);
builder.AddEnvironmentVariables();
Configuration = builder.Build();
}
public IConfigurationRoot Configuration { get; set; }
// This method gets called by the runtime. Use this method to add services to the container.
// For more information on how to configure your application, visit http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=398940
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddMvc();
services.AddOptions();
services.Configure<AppSettings>(Configuration.GetSection("AppSettings"));
}
.................
.................

So in your config.json file, suppose you have following settings
{
"smtp": {
"SenderEmail": "a#b.com",
"SenderFrom": "Test User"
}
}
Then in your ConfigureServices method you need to do something like that
services.Configure<SmtpEmailSetting>(Configuration.GetSection("smtp"));
This is your SmtpEmailSetting looks like
public class SmtpEmailSetting
{
public string SenderEmail { get; set; }
public string SenderFrom { get; set; }
}
and this is how you access your settings in any service or controller
public class SendEmailService
{
private readonly SmtpEmailSetting _smtpEmailSetting;
public SendEmailService(IOptions<SmtpEmailSetting> smtpOptions )
{
_smtpEmailSetting = smtpOptions.Value;
}
public void SendEmail()
{
var fromEmail = _smtpEmailSetting.SenderEmail;
var displayName = _smtpEmailSetting.SenderFrom;
}
}
So basically you use your settings or options (whatever you prefer to call) should be used in constructor as a generic type parameter of IOptions<> class. Hope it helps

In order to access your AppSettings properties in your custom class, make configuration as a static instance such as:
public static IConfigurationRoot Configuration { get; set; }
and make use of your AppSettings any where in your application (for connectionstring example) as:
var connectionString = Startup.Configuration["Data:DefaultConnection:ConnectionString"];

Just to add to adeel41's answer, this is correct and works great, but for myself, I didn't want to drag around an IOption object when using dependency injection.
So I prefer to do something like
services.AddSingleton<ISmtpEmailSettings>(Configuration.GetSection("SmtpSettings").Get<SmtpEmailSettings>());
Most importantly is the Get syntax added to GetSection to deserialize your JSON to an object.

At the time of RC1, I took inspiration from this post by Rick Strahl, which worked great. That is very similar to other approaches already proposed.
This answer is just to update with my findings as of RTM release. It seems like Configuration.GetSection(string topLevelKey) does not work anymore, at least for me it always returns null (even if configuration sources are set correctly).
After some search, this other SO thread pointed me in the right direction, by using:
// create empty config object
var smtpEmailSetting = new SmtpEmailSetting();
// fill it from configuration section
Configuration.GetSection("smtp").Bind(smtpEmailSetting);
// use it, e.g. by registering it into DI
services.Configure<SmtpEmailSetting>(smtpEmailSetting);
HTH

If you need it in your own class, it's probably right to pass it into the constructor of that class, or as a parameter. Eg;
public class Notifications
{
public Notifications(AppSettings settings) {
this.settings = settings;
}
public void SendEmail(string subject, string body) {
SmptClient.Send(subject, body, settings["email address"]);
}
}
So typically, you'd pass it through from your controller.
This avoids a global variable, which is always a good thing, I think.

How do I handle a configuration class that are loaded at runtime with dependency injection?

I'm currently trying to work with dependency injection and so far I love. But it's one thing I can't really get my head around and where my current solution just seems wrong.
I'm working with WPF, MVVM and many of the classes I inject need an instance of a project configuration class that isn't initialized until the user create or open a new project in the application.
So my current solution is to have a "ConfigurationHandler" with load/save method and a property that hold an instance of the configuration class after it's loaded. I inject ConfigurationHandler to the others classes and then they can access the configuration after it's loaded. But it seems weird to let classes that never should save/load configuration handle the whole "ConfigurationHandler" and 100% they would just use it to access the configuration instance likt this:
var configuration = configurationHandler.Configuration;
Another problem is that if they try to access the configuration before it's loaded they will get exception (should not really happen as you can't do anything before a project is created/loaded, but still).
But the only other solution I can think of is to use "intialize" methods after a project is created/open but that seems just as bad.
So how do you usually handle cases like this?
Edit: Should add that this configuration class handle information like project path, project name, etc so have nothing to do with the dependency injection itself.

If your configuration is static (read: It's only read during startup of your application, such as from project.json or Web.Config), you can also set it during app startup/the composition root.
The new ASP.NET 5 uses it heavily and it works very well. Basically you will have an IConfiguration<T> interface and a POCO class, which you set up during the app startup and can resolve/inject it into your services.
public interface IConfiguration<T> where T : class
{
T Configuration { get; }
}
And it's default implementation
public interface DefaultConfiguration<T> where T : class
{
private readonly T configuration;
public T Configuration {
return configuration;
}
public DefaultConfiguration<T>(T config)
{
this.configuration = this.configuration;
}
}
And your POCO class
public class AppConfiguration
{
public string OneOption { get; set; }
public string OtherOption { get; set; }
}
In your composition root, you would then register it, like
// read Web.Config
Configuration rootWebConfig = System.Web.Configuration.WebConfigurationManager.OpenWebConfiguration(null);
container.AddSingleton<IConfiguration<AppConfiguration>>(new DefaultConfiguration<AppConfiguration>(
new AppConfiguration
{
OneOption = rootWebConfig.AppSettings.Settings["oneSetting"],
OtherOption = rootWebConfig.AppSettings.Settings["otherSetting"],
})
);
And finally, all you have to declare in your services is
public class MyService : IMyService
{
public MyService(IUserRepository, IConfiguration<AppConfiguration> appConfig)
{
...
if(appConfig.OneOption=="someValue") {
// do something
};
}
}
Finally you can make this a bit easier to configure, if you write an extension method like
public static class MyContainerExtension
{
public static void Configure<T>(this IMyContainer container, Action<T> config) where T : class, new()
{
var t = new T();
config(t);
container.AddSingelton<IConfiguration<T>>(t);
}
}
Then all you need to do is
container.Configure<AppConfiguration>(
config =>
{
config.OneOption = rootWebConfig.AppSettings.Settings["oneSetting"],
config.OtherOption = rootWebConfig.AppSettings.Settings["otherSetting"],
})
);
to set it up

Instead of Constructor Injection, consider using an Ambient Context approach.
The last type of DI we’ll discuss is making dependencies available
through a static accessor. It is also called injection through the
ambient context. It is used when implementing cross-cutting concerns.
This is a good option if the classes that need access to your configuration are of different types in different layers or libraries - i.e. is a true cross-cutting concern.
(Quote source)
Example, based on the classic Time Provider one from [Dependency Injection in .NET][2]
abstract class CustomConfiguration
{
//current dependency stored in static field
private static CustomConfiguration current;
//static property which gives access to dependency
public static CustomConfiguration Current
{
get
{
if (current == null)
{
//Ambient Context can't return null, so we assign a Local Default
current = new DefaultCustomConfiguration();
}
return current;
}
set
{
//allows to set different implementation of abstraction than Local Default
current = (value == null) ? new DefaultCustomConfiguration() : value;
}
}
//service which should be override by subclass
public virtual string SomeSetting { get; }
}
//Local Default
class DefaultCustomConfiguration : CustomConfiguration
{
public override string SomeSetting
{
get { return "setting"; }
}
}
Usage
CustomConfiguration.Current.SomeSetting;
There are other DI Patterns that could be used, but require changes to the class that need it. If Configuration is a cross cutting concern Ambient Context could be the best fit.
Constructor Injection Example
public SomeClass(IConfiguration config)
{
}
Property Injection
public SomeClass()
{
IConfiguration configuration { get; set; }
}
Method Injection
public SomeClass()
{
public void DoSomethingNeedingConfiguation(IConfiguration config)
{
}
}
There is also Service Locator, but Service Locator is (IMO) an anti-pattern.

Getting a Configuration Value in ASP.NET 5 (vNext)

I am struggling with some concepts in ASP.NET 5 (vNext).
One of those is the Dependency Injection approach used for configuration. It seems like I have to pass a parameter all the way through the stack. I'm probably misunderstanding something or doing it wrong.
Imagine I have a config property named "contactEmailAddress". I'll use that config property to send an email when a new order is placed. With that scenario in mind, my ASP.NET 5 stack will look like this:
Startup.cs
public class Startup
{
public IConfiguration Configuration { get; set; }
public Startup(IHostingEnvironment environment)
{
var configuration = new Configuration().AddJsonFile("config.json");
Configuration = configuration;
}
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.Configure<AppSettings>(Configuration.GetSubKey("AppSettings"));
services.AddMvc();
}
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app)
{
app.UseErrorPage();
app.UseMvc(routes =>
{
routes.MapRoute("default",
"{controller}/{action}/{id}",
defaults: new { controller = "Home", action = "Index" });
}
);
app.UseWelcomePage();
}
AppSettings.cs
public class AppSettings
{
public string ContactEmailAddress { get; set; }
}
config.json
{
"AppSettings": {
"ContactEmailAddress":"support#mycompany.com"
}
}
OrderController.cs
[Route("orders")]
public class OrdersController : Controller
{
private IOptions<AppSettings> AppSettings { get; set; }
public OrdersController(IOptions<AppSettings> appSettings)
{
AppSettings = appSettings;
}
[HttpGet("new-order")]
public IActionResult OrderCreate()
{
var viewModel = new OrderViewModel();
return View(viewModel);
}
[HttpPost("new-order")]
public IActionResult OrderCreate(OrderViewModel viewModel)
{
return new HttpStatusCodeResult(200);
}
}
Order.cs
public class Order()
{
public void Save(IOptions<AppSettings> appSettings)
{
// Send email to address in appSettings
}
public static List<Order> FindAll(IOptions<AppSettings> appSettings)
{
// Send report email to address in appSettings
return new List<Order>();
}
}
As the example above shows, I'm passing AppSettings through the entire stack. This does not feel correct. To further my worries, this approach will not work if I'm attempt to use a third-party library that needs to access configuration settings. How can a third-party library access configuration settings? Am I misunderstanding something? Is there a better way to do this?

You are entangling 2 different run time resource provider, AppSettings and Dependency Injection.
AppSettings, provides run-time access to Application specific values like UICulture strings, Contact Email, etc.
DI Containers are factories that Manage access to Services and their lifetime scopes. For example, If a MVC Controller needed access to your EmailService, you would configure
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
// Add all dependencies needed by Mvc.
services.AddMvc();
// Add EmailService to the collection. When an instance is needed,
// the framework injects this instance to the objects that needs it
services.AddSingleton<IEmailService, EmailService>();
}
Then, if our Home Controller needs access to your EmailService, we add a dependency on it's Interface by adding it as a parameter to the Controller constructor
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private readonly IEmailService _emailService;
private readonly string _emailContact;
/// The framework will inject an instance of an IEmailService implementation.
public HomeController(IEmailService emailService)
{
_emailService = emailService;
_emailContact = System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.
AppSettings.Get("ContactEmail");
}
[HttpPost]
public void EmailSupport([FromBody] string message)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
Context.Response.StatusCode = 400;
}
else
{
_emailService.Send(_emailContact, message);
The purpose of Dependancy Injection is to manage access and lifetimes of services.
In the previous example, in our Application Startup, we configured the DI Factory to associate application requests for IEmailService with EmailService. So when our Controllers are instantiate by the MVC Framework, the framework notices that our Home Controller expects IEmailService, the framework checks our Application Services Collection. It finds mapping instructions and Inject a Singleton EmailService (a descendant of the occupying Interface) into our Home Controller.
Super Polymorphic Factorific - alodocious!
Why is this important?
If your contact email changes, you change the AppSetting value and are done. All requests for "ContactEmail" from ConfigurationManager are Globally changed. Strings are easy. No need for Injection when we can just hash.
If your Repository, Email Service, Logging Service, etc changes, you want a Global way to change all references to this service. Service reference aren't as easily transferred as immutable string literals. Service instantiation should be handled by a factory to configure the Service's settings and dependencies.
So, in a year you develop a RobustMailService:
Class RobustMailService : IEmailService
{
....
}
As long as your new RobustMailService inherits and implements the IEmailService Interface, you can substitute all references to your mail service Globally by changing :
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
// Add all dependencies needed by Mvc.
services.AddMvc();
// Add RobustMailService to the collection. When an instance is needed,
// the framework injects this instance to the objects that needs it
services.AddSingleton<IEmailService, RobustMailService>();
}

This can be achieved using IOptions assessor service as it seems you were trying.
We can begin by creating a class with all of the variables that your controller needs from configuration.
public class VariablesNeeded
{
public string Foo1{ get; set; }
public int Foo2{ get; set; }
}
public class OtherVariablesNeeded
{
public string Foo1{ get; set; }
public int Foo2{ get; set; }
}
We now need to tell the middleware that the controller needs this class in the constructor of the controller using dependency injection, we do this using IOptions accessor service.
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc;
using Microsoft.Extensions.Options;
public class MyController: Controller{
private readonly VariablesNeeded _variablesNeeded;
public MyController(IOptions<VariablesNeeded> variablesNeeded) {
_variablesNeeded= variablesNeeded.Value;
}
public ActionResult TestVariables() {
return Content(_variablesNeeded.Foo1 + _variablesNeeded.Foo2);
}
}
To get the variables from your configuration files, we create a constructor for the startup class, and a configuration property.
public IConfigurationRoot Configuration { get; }
public Startup(IHostingEnvironment env)
{
/* This is the fairly standard procedure now for configuration builders which will pull from appsettings (potentially with an environmental suffix), and environment variables. */
var builder = new ConfigurationBuilder()
.SetBasePath(env.ContentRootPath)
.AddJsonFile("appsettings.json", optional: true, reloadOnChange: true)
.AddJsonFile($"appsettings.{env.EnvironmentName}.json", optional: true)
.AddEnvironmentVariables();
Configuration = builder.Build();
}
Now we need to make sure the pipeline actually supplies the controller with this service.
In your ConfigureServices method in your Startup class, you want to use the Options middleware, and inject an object of type VariablesNeeded in to the pipeline.
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
// Tells the pipeline we want to use IOption Assessor Services
services.AddOptions();
// Injects the object VariablesNeeded in to the pipeline with our desired variables
services.Configure<VariablesNeeded>(x =>
{
x.Foo1 = Configuration["KeyInAppSettings"]
x.Foo2 = Convert.ToInt32(Configuration["KeyParentName:KeyInAppSettings"])
});
//You may want another set of options for another controller, or perhaps to pass both to our "MyController" if so, you just add it to the pipeline
services.Configure<OtherVariablesNeeded>(x =>
{
x.Foo1 = "Other Test String",
x.Foo2 = 2
});
//The rest of your configure services...
}
For more information see the chapter on Using Options and configuration objects in the ASPCore Docs