Develop Reference

Ninject Auto Instantiate singleton instance [duplicate]

I have some services in my asp.net mvc application that listen for AMQP messages and invoke methods.
No controllers depend on this, so it won't get instantiated on its own.
I could instantiate it manually, explicitly providing its dependencies with kernel.Get but it feels like I shouldn't have to do that.
Can I make Ninject instantiate classes in singleton scope eagerly even when nothing else depends on it?

You cannot have ninject instantiate stuff in case you don't ask it to instantiate something yourself.
The simple way is to ask ninject to instantiate things at composition root:
var kernel = new StandardKernel();
kernel.Bind<IFoo>().To<Foo>();
kernel.Load(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies()); // loads all modules in assemlby
//...
// resolution root completely configured
kernel.Resolve<IFooSingleton>();
kernel.Resolve<IBarSIngleton>();
There is one alternative, actually, which is not the same, but can be used to achieve a similar effect. It requires that there is at least one single other service instantiated soon enough: Ninject.Extensions.DependencyCreation.
It works like this:
kernel.Bind<string>().ToConstant("hello");
kernel.Bind<ISingletonDependency>().To<SingletonDependency>()
.InSingletonScope();
kernel.DefineDependency<string, ISingletonDependency>();
kernel.Get<string>();
// when asking for a string for the first time
// ISingletonDependency will be instantiated.
// of course you can use any other type instead of string
Why
Ninject is unlike some other containers (for example Autofac) not "built" in stages. There's no concept of first creating the bindings, and then creating the kernel to use them. The following is perfectly legal:
kernel.Bind<IFoo>()...
kernel.Get<IFoo>()...
kernel.Bind<IBar>()...
kernel.Get<IBar>()...
so ninject can't possibly know when you want the singletons to be instantiated. With autofac it's clear and easy:
var containerBuilder = new ContainerBuilder();
containerBuilder
.RegisterType<Foo>()
.AutoActivate();
var container = containerBuilder.Build(); // now

Coming from Guice in Java, I've sorely missed the pattern of eager singletons. They are useful in scenarios where for example modules act as plugins. If you imagine that a service is assembled from modules that are specified in a configuration, you could see a problem of then also trying to specify what this module needs to be auto-instantiated when the application is started.
For me the module is where the composition of the application is defined and separating eager singletons into another place in the code feels more clunky and less intuitive.
Anyway, I've been able to very easily implement this as a layer on top of Ninject, here's the code:
public static class EagerSingleton
{
public static IBindingNamedWithOrOnSyntax<T> AsEagerSingleton<T>(this IBindingInSyntax<T> binding)
{
var r = binding.InSingletonScope();
binding.Kernel.Bind<IEagerSingleton>().To<EagerSingleton<T>>().InSingletonScope();
return r;
}
}
public interface IEagerSingleton { }
public class EagerSingleton<TComponent> : IEagerSingleton
{
public EagerSingleton(TComponent component)
{
// do nothing. DI created the component for this constructor.
}
}
public class EagerSingletonSvc
{
public EagerSingletonSvc(IEagerSingleton[] singletons)
{
// do nothing. DI created all the singletons for this constructor.
}
}
After you've created your kernel, add a single line:
kernel.Get<EagerSingletonSvc>(); // activate all eager singletons
You use it in a module like this:
Bind<UnhandledExceptionHandlerSvc>().ToSelf().AsEagerSingleton();

Dependency Injection and the Strategy Pattern

There is an enormous amount of discussion on this topic, but everyone seems to miss an obvious answer. I'd like help vetting this "obvious" IOC container solution. The various conversations assume run-time selection of strategies and the use of an IOC container. I will continue with these assumptions.
I also want to add the assumption that it is not a single strategy that must be selected. Rather, I might need to retrieve an object-graph that has several strategies found throughout the nodes of the graph.
I will first quickly outline the two commonly proposed solutions, and then I will present the "obvious" alternative that I'd like to see an IOC container support. I will be using Unity as the example syntax, though my question is not specific to Unity.
Named Bindings
This approach requires that every new strategy has a binding manually added:
Container.RegisterType<IDataAccess, DefaultAccessor>();
Container.RegisterType<IDataAccess, AlphaAccessor>("Alpha");
Container.RegisterType<IDataAccess, BetaAccessor>("Beta");
...and then the correct strategy is explicitly requested:
var strategy = Container.Resolve<IDataAccess>("Alpha");
Pros: Simple, and supported by all IOC Containers
Cons:
Typically binds the caller to the IOC Container, and certainly requires the caller to know something about the strategy (such as the name "Alpha").
Every new strategy must be manually added to the list of bindings.
This approach is not suitable for handling multiple strategies in an object graph. In short, it does not meet requirements.
Abstract Factory
To illustrate this approach, assume the following classes:
public class DataAccessFactory{
public IDataAccess Create(string strategy){
return //insert appropriate creation logic here.
}
public IDataAccess Create(){
return //Choose strategy through ambient context, such as thread-local-storage.
}
}
public class Consumer
{
public Consumer(DataAccessFactory datafactory)
{
//variation #1. Not sufficient to meet requirements.
var myDataStrategy = datafactory.Create("Alpha");
//variation #2. This is sufficient for requirements.
var myDataStrategy = datafactory.Create();
}
}
The IOC Container then has the following binding:
Container.RegisterType<DataAccessFactory>();
Pros:
The IOC Container is hidden from consumers
The "ambient context" is closer to the desired result but...
Cons:
The constructors of each strategy might have different needs. But now the responsibility of constructor injection has been transferred to the abstract factory from the container. In other words, every time a new strategy is added it may be necessary to modify the corresponding abstract factory.
Heavy use of strategies means heavy amounts of creating abstract factories. It would be nice if the IOC container simply gave a little more help.
If this is a multi-threaded application and the "ambient context" is indeed provided by thread-local-storage, then by the time an object is using an injected abstract-factory to create the type it needs, it may be operating on a different thread which no longer has access to the necessary thread-local-storage value.
Type Switching / Dynamic Binding
This is the approach that I want to use instead of the above two approaches. It involves providing a delegate as part of the IOC container binding. Most all IOC Containers already have this ability, but this specific approach has an important subtle difference.
The syntax would be something like this:
Container.RegisterType(typeof(IDataAccess),
new InjectionStrategy((c) =>
{
//Access ambient context (perhaps thread-local-storage) to determine
//the type of the strategy...
Type selectedStrategy = ...;
return selectedStrategy;
})
);
Notice that the InjectionStrategy is not returning an instance of IDataAccess. Instead it is returning a type description that implements IDataAccess. The IOC Container would then perform the usual creation and "build up" of that type, which might include other strategies being selected.
This is in contrast to the standard type-to-delegate binding which, in the case of Unity, is coded like this:
Container.RegisterType(typeof(IDataAccess),
new InjectionFactory((c) =>
{
//Access ambient context (perhaps thread-local-storage) to determine
//the type of the strategy...
IDataAccess instanceOfSelectedStrategy = ...;
return instanceOfSelectedStrategy;
})
);
The above actually comes close to satisfying the overall need, but definitely falls short of the hypothetical Unity InjectionStrategy.
Focusing on the first sample (which used a hypothetical Unity InjectionStrategy):
Pros:
Hides the container
No need either to create endless abstract factories, or have consumers fiddle with them.
No need to manually adjust IOC container bindings whenever a new strategy is available.
Allows the container to retain lifetime management controls.
Supports a pure DI story, which means that a multi-threaded app can create the entire object-graph on a thread with the proper thread-local-storage settings.
Cons:
Because the Type returned by the strategy was not available when the initial IOC container bindings were created, it means there may be a tiny performance hit the first time that type is returned. In other words, the container must on-the-spot reflect the type to discover what constructors it has, so that it knows how to inject it. All subsequent occurrences of that type should be fast, because the container can cache the results it found from the first time. This is hardly a "con" worth mentioning, but I'm trying for full-disclosure.
???
Is there an existing IOC container that can behave this way? Anyone have a Unity custom injection class that achieves this effect?

As far as I can tell, this question is about run-time selection or mapping of one of several candidate Strategies.
There's no reason to rely on a DI Container to do this, as there are at least three ways to do this in a container-agnostic way:
Use a Metadata Role Hint
Use a Role Interface Role Hint
Use a Partial Type Name Role Hint
My personal preference is the Partial Type Name Role Hint.

I have achieved this requirement in many forms over the last couple of years. Firstly let's pull the main points I can see in your post
assume run-time selection of strategies and the use of an IOC container ... add the assumption that it is not a single strategy that must be selected. Rather, I might need to retrieve an object-graph that has several strategies ... [must not] binds the caller to the IOC Container ... Every new strategy must [not need to] be manually added to the list of bindings ... It would be nice if the IOC container simply gave a little more help.
I have used Simple Injector as my container of choice for some time now and one of the drivers for this decision is that it has extensive support for generics. It is through this feature that we will implement your requirements.
I'm a firm believer that the code should speak for itself so I'll jump right in ...
I have defined an extra class ContainerResolvedClass<T> to demonstrate that Simple Injector finds the right implementation(s) and successfully injects them into a constructor. That is the only reason for the class ContainerResolvedClass<T>. (This class exposes the handlers that are injected into it for test purposes via result.Handlers.)
This first test requires that we get one implementation back for the fictional class Type1:
[Test]
public void CompositeHandlerForType1_Resolves_WithAlphaHandler()
{
var container = this.ContainerFactory();
var result = container.GetInstance<ContainerResolvedClass<Type1>>();
var handlers = result.Handlers.Select(x => x.GetType());
Assert.That(handlers.Count(), Is.EqualTo(1));
Assert.That(handlers.Contains(typeof(AlphaHandler<Type1>)), Is.True);
}
This second test requires that we get one implementation back for the fictional class Type2:
[Test]
public void CompositeHandlerForType2_Resolves_WithAlphaHandler()
{
var container = this.ContainerFactory();
var result = container.GetInstance<ContainerResolvedClass<Type2>>();
var handlers = result.Handlers.Select(x => x.GetType());
Assert.That(handlers.Count(), Is.EqualTo(1));
Assert.That(handlers.Contains(typeof(BetaHandler<Type2>)), Is.True);
}
This third test requires that we get two implementations back for the fictional class Type3:
[Test]
public void CompositeHandlerForType3_Resolves_WithAlphaAndBetaHandlers()
{
var container = this.ContainerFactory();
var result = container.GetInstance<ContainerResolvedClass<Type3>>();
var handlers = result.Handlers.Select(x => x.GetType());
Assert.That(handlers.Count(), Is.EqualTo(2));
Assert.That(handlers.Contains(typeof(AlphaHandler<Type3>)), Is.True);
Assert.That(handlers.Contains(typeof(BetaHandler<Type3>)), Is.True);
}
These tests seems to meet your requirements and best of all no containers are harmed in the solution.
The trick is to use a combination of parameter objects and marker interfaces. The parameter objects contain the data for the behaviour (i.e. the IHandler's) and the marker interfaces govern which behaviours act on which parameter objects.
Here are the marker interfaces and parameter objects - you'll note that Type3 is marked with both marker interfaces:
private interface IAlpha { }
private interface IBeta { }
private class Type1 : IAlpha { }
private class Type2 : IBeta { }
private class Type3 : IAlpha, IBeta { }
Here are the behaviours (IHandler<T>'s):
private interface IHandler<T> { }
private class AlphaHandler<TAlpha> : IHandler<TAlpha> where TAlpha : IAlpha { }
private class BetaHandler<TBeta> : IHandler<TBeta> where TBeta : IBeta { }
This is the single method that will find all implementations of an open generic:
public IEnumerable<Type> GetLoadedOpenGenericImplementations(Type type)
{
var types =
from assembly in AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies()
from t in assembly.GetTypes()
where !t.IsAbstract
from i in t.GetInterfaces()
where i.IsGenericType
where i.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == type
select t;
return types;
}
And this is the code that configures the container for our tests:
private Container ContainerFactory()
{
var container = new Container();
var types = this.GetLoadedOpenGenericImplementations(typeof(IHandler<>));
container.RegisterAllOpenGeneric(typeof(IHandler<>), types);
container.RegisterOpenGeneric(
typeof(ContainerResolvedClass<>),
typeof(ContainerResolvedClass<>));
return container;
}
And finally, the test class ContainerResolvedClass<>
private class ContainerResolvedClass<T>
{
public readonly IEnumerable<IHandler<T>> Handlers;
public ContainerResolvedClass(IEnumerable<IHandler<T>> handlers)
{
this.Handlers = handlers;
}
}
I realise this post is a quite long, but I hope it clearly demonstrates a possible solution to your problem ...

This is a late response but maybe it will help others.
I have a pretty simple approach. I simply create a StrategyResolver to not be directly depending on Unity.
public class StrategyResolver : IStrategyResolver
{
private IUnityContainer container;
public StrategyResolver(IUnityContainer unityContainer)
{
this.container = unityContainer;
}
public T Resolve<T>(string namedStrategy)
{
return this.container.Resolve<T>(namedStrategy);
}
}
Usage:
public class SomeClass: ISomeInterface
{
private IStrategyResolver strategyResolver;
public SomeClass(IStrategyResolver stratResolver)
{
this.strategyResolver = stratResolver;
}
public void Process(SomeDto dto)
{
IActionHandler actionHanlder = this.strategyResolver.Resolve<IActionHandler>(dto.SomeProperty);
actionHanlder.Handle(dto);
}
}
Registration:
container.RegisterType<IActionHandler, ActionOne>("One");
container.RegisterType<IActionHandler, ActionTwo>("Two");
container.RegisterType<IStrategyResolver, StrategyResolver>();
container.RegisterType<ISomeInterface, SomeClass>();
Now, the nice thing about this is that I will never have to touch the StrategyResolver ever again when adding new strategies in the future.
It's very simple. Very clean and I kept the dependency on Unity to a strict minimum. The only time I would have touch the StrategyResolver is if I decide to change container technology which is very unlikely to happen.
Hope this helps!

I generally use a combination of your Abstract Factory and Named Bindings options. After trying many different approaches, I find this approach to be a decent balance.
What I do is create a factory that essentially wraps the instance of the container. See the section in Mark's article called Container-based Factory. As he suggests, I make this factory part of the composition root.
To make my code a little cleaner and less "magic string" based, I use an enum to denote the different possible strategies, and use the .ToString() method to register and resolve.
From your Cons of these approaches:
Typically binds the caller to the IOC Container
In this approach, the container is referenced in the factory, which is part of the Composition Root, so this is no longer an issue (in my opinion).
. . . and certainly requires the caller to know something about the strategy (such as the
name "Alpha").
Every new strategy must be manually added to the list
of bindings. This approach is not suitable for handling multiple
strategies in an object graph. In short, it does not meet
requirements.
At some point, code needs to be written to acknowledge the mapping between the structure that provides the implementation (container, provider, factory, etc.) and the code that requires it. I don't think you can get around this unless you want to use something that is purely convention-based.
The constructors of each strategy might have different needs. But now the responsibility of constructor injection has been transferred to the abstract factory from the container. In other words, every time a new strategy is added it may be necessary to modify the corresponding abstract factory.
This approach solves this concern completely.
Heavy use of strategies means heavy amounts of creating abstract factories.[...]
Yes, you will need one abstract factory for each set of strategies.
If this is a multi-threaded application and the "ambient context" is indeed provided by thread-local-storage, then by the time an object is using an injected abstract-factory to create the type it needs, it may be operating on a different thread which no longer has access to the necessary thread-local-storage value.
This will no longer be an issue since TLC will not be used.
I don't feel that there is a perfect solution, but this approach has worked well for me.

How to access Ninject.Kernel without using Service Locator pattern

I have read dozens of posts regarding this topic, without finding a clear guideline of how to access the Ninject.Kernel without using the Service Locator pattern.
I currently have the following in the classes that need to use CustomerBusiness (which is my service) and it works fine, but I am well aware that it is not the recommended way of doing it.
private CustomerBusiness _customerBusiness;
private ICustomerRepository CustomerRepository
{
get { return NinjectWebCommon.Kernel.Get<IAccountRepository>(); }
}
private CustomerBusiness CustomerBusiness
{
get
{
if (_customerBusiness == null)
{
_customerBusiness = new CustomerBusiness(AccountRepository);
}
return _customerBusiness;
}
}
public Customer GetCustomer(int id)
{
return CustomerBusiness.GetCustomer(id);
}
This is the Kernel property accessed in the code above:
public static IKernel Kernel
{
get
{
return CreateKernel();
}
}
I've read many suggestions about using a factory for this, but none of them explain how to use this factory. I would really appreciate if anyone could show me the "CustomerFactory" or any other recommended approach including how to use it.
Update
I am using ASP.NET Web Forms and need to access CustomerBusiness from CodeBehind.
Solution
The final solution that I found to be working, was the answer with the most votes found at this post:
How can I implement Ninject or DI on asp.net Web Forms?
It looks like this (Note inheritance from PageBase, which is part of Ninject.Web - that is the key!):
public partial class Edit : PageBase
{
[Inject]
public ICustomerBusiness CustomerBusiness { get; set; }
...
The accepted answer below indirectly lead me to find this solution.

Since you're using NinjectWebCommon, I assume you have a web application of some sort. You really should only access the Ninject kernel in one place - at the composition root. It is the place where you are building the object graph and the only place you should ever need an access to the IoC container. To actually get the dependencies you need, you typically employ constructor injection.
In case of MVC web applications, for example, you have a controller factory using the Ninject kernel and that's the only place which references it.
To expand on your particular situation, your class would accept ICustomerBusiness in its constructor, declaring that it needs an instance of ICustomerBusiness as its dependency:
class CustomerBusinessConsumer : ICustomerBusinessConsumer
{
private readonly ICustomerBusiness customerBusiness;
public CustomerBusinessConsumer(ICustomerBusiness customerBusiness)
{
this.customerBusiness = customerBusiness;
}
...
}
Now, whichever class uses ICustomerBusinessConsumer as its dependency, would follow the same pattern (accepting an instance of ICustomerBusinessConsumer as its constructor parameter). You basically never construct your dependencies manually using new (specific exceptions aside).
Then, you just have to make sure your classes get their dependencies and it's this composition root where you do this. What exactly is composition root depends on the type of an application you are writing (console application, WPF application, web service, MVC web application...)
EDIT: To get myself familiar with the situation in the ASP.NET WebForms realm
I had to look up the details since I've never used it. Unfortunately, WebForms require you to have a parameterless constructor at each of your Page classes, so you can't use constructor injection all the way from the top of the object graph down to the bottom.
However, after consulting Mark Seeman's chapter on composing objects in WebForms, I can rephrase how to deal with this framework's inefficiency, while still acting in line with good DI practices:
Have a class responsible for resolving the dependencies, using the Ninject's kernel you have set up. This may be a very thin wrapper around the kernel. Let's call it DependencyContainer.
Create your container and save it in the application context, so that it's ready when you need it
protected void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.Application["container"] = new DependencyContainer();
}
Let's suppose your page class (let's call it HomePage) has a dependency on ICustomerBusinessConsumer. Then DependencyContainer has to allow us to retrieve an instance of ICustomerBusinessConsumer:
public ICustomerBusinessConsumer ResolveCustomerBusinessConsumer()
{
return Kernel.Get<ICustomerBusinessConsumer>();
}
Than in the MainPage class itself, you will resolve its dependencies in the default constructor:
public MainPage()
{
var container = (DependencyContainer) HttpContext.Current.Application["container"];
this.customerBusinessConsumer = container.ResolveCustomerBusinessConsumer();
}
Few notes:
having the dependency container available in the HttpContext must not be tempting to consider it a service locator. In fact, the best practice here (at least from the standpoint of being true to DI) is to have some kind of "implementor" classes to which you will relay the functionality of your page classes.
For example, each action handled by MainPage will be only relayed to its implementor class. This implementor class will be a dependency of MainPage and, as all other dependencies, will be resolved using the container.
The important part is that these implementor classes should be in assemblies not referencing the ASP.NET assemblies and thus without a chance to access the HttpContext
having to write so much code to achieve this is certainly not ideal, but it is only a consequence of the framework's limitation. In ASP.NET MVC applications, for example, this is dealt with in a much better way. There you have single point where you can compose the object graphs and you don't have to resolve them in each top-level class as you have to in WebForms.
the good thing is that while you have to write some plumbing code in the page class constructors, from there down the object graph you can employ constructor injection

Constructor injection is the preferred method for DI with ninject, however it also supports property injection. Take a read of the ninject page around injection patterns here https://github.com/ninject/ninject/wiki/Injection-Patterns.
Both of these are injection patterns unlike service location which is request based, not really injection at all.
The flipside of injection is that you need to control construction. When using MVC all of the wiring to do this is built into the MVC ninject package on nuget

OOD using IoC containers - how to construct dependant objects?

I am trying to get better with IoC,DI and OOD for better testability and looser coupling.
So when we design classes with heavy use of IoC and DI we can endup with classes with multiple dependencies for example
class Processor
{
private IService1 m_Service1;
private IService2 m_Service2;
private IService3 m_Service3;
//approach 1
public Processor(IService1 service1, IService2 service2, IService3 service3)
{
m_Service1 = service1;
m_Service2 = service2;
m_Service3 = service3;
}
//approach 2
public Processor(IContainer container)
{
m_Service1 = container.Resolve<IService1>();
m_Service2 = container.Resolve<IService2>();
m_Service3 = container.Resolve<IService3>();
}
//approach 3
public delegate Processor Factory();
}
Im thinking what should be the usual approach here. We can leave constructor with 3 parameters, but if we are building app using autofac (for example) most likely it will rarely be used other than by resolving types from some container instance like
Processor proc = new Processor(
container.Resolve<IService1>(),
container.Resolve<IService2>(),
container.Resolve<IService3>());
so I am thinking maybe approach 2 is better, when we depend on multiple types from container. Anyway we will have to add reference to autofac somewhere, so any reasons not to do it now?
Autofac also provides delegate factory method approach
http://code.google.com/p/autofac/wiki/DelegateFactories
var processorFactory = container.Resolve<Processor.Factory>();
Processor processor = processorFactory.Invoke();
So we have also approach 3 - we will not use constructors to create our class instances, instead we will be calling resolved delegate from container and it will resolve dependencies for us.
Since im fairly new to IoC its hard to say when we should use 1,2,3. They have advantages and disadvantages.
I think generally if class has 1 dependency we can probably always use approach 1.. other than that I am really not sure what to choose and when.
UPDATE i have read about service locator anti pattern but Ive come up with 4th (or true 3rd approach)
its close to ServiceLocator except its not, we pass an object that looks like this
public class ServiceLocatorObject
{
private IService1 m_Service1;
private IService2 m_Service2;
private IService3 m_Service3;
public IService1 Service1 {get {return m_Service1;}}
public IService2 Service2 {get {return m_Service2;}}
public IService3 Service3 {get {return m_Service3;}}
public ServiceLocatorObject(IService1 service1, IService2 service2, IService3 service3)
{
m_Service1 = service1;
m_Service2 = service2;
m_Service3 = service3;
}
}
And now we create
//approach 4
public Processor(ServiceLocatorObject servicesToUse)
{
m_Services = servicesToUse;
}
Now we have decoupled our class from service implementations and its clear what real dependencies it needs (if we assume all services availabe on passed object are required) because we aren't passing a container that can contain 100 implementations. And that object can be even reused if that 3 service combination might be required in some another class in our application. So we are using constructor DI not ServiceLocator pattern. interface is clear and not overloaded with dependencies, new class might be a good reuse candidate.
What would you say about this one?

The service location pattern is often considered an anti-pattern these days (using container.Resolve and injecting the container).
After MUCH struggling with this concept myself and trying to decide if I like it or hate it, I've come to the personal realization that I agree service location is an anti-pattern - because it obfuscates the interdependencies which exist and which are a core concept of OOP.
Have a read here:
http://blog.ploeh.dk/2010/02/03/ServiceLocatorIsAnAntiPattern.aspx
I actually LIKE that fact that in option 1, Process CLEARLY expresses its dependency on each of the services it lists are parameters in the constructor. It makes the dependencies very obvious....and further I think it helps promote good design.
Just saying Processor takes an IContainer doesn't tell us very much...and thus you need to take a much closer look to identify interdependencies.

The answer given by JeffN825 is correct, but I'd like to add to it that you'd never create a new Processor instance using a container like this:
Processor proc = new Processor(
container.Resolve<IService1>(),
container.Resolve<IService2>(),
container.Resolve<IService3>());
Rather, you'd let the container auto-wire the dependencies and resolve it one go:
Processor proc = container.Resolve<Processor>();

This is not about number of dependencies, nor a per class decision. Approach 2 introduces a new dependency, but if you want to rely on an IoC container, than it is a good approach. Approach 3 is like the second, but let's you do some stuff in the Factory in future. Approach 1 is simplest, doesn't rely on anything and should be used for dependencies which you wouldn't usually manage through IoC container.

Dependency Injection vs Service Location

I am currently weighing up the advantages and disadvantages between DI and SL. However, I have found myself in the following catch 22 which implies that I should just use SL for everything, and only inject an IoC container into each class.
DI Catch 22:
Some dependencies, like Log4Net, simply do not suit DI. I call these meta-dependencies and feel they should be opaque to calling code. My justification being that if a simple class 'D' was originally implemented without logging, and then grows to require logging, then dependent classes 'A', 'B', and 'C' must now somehow obtain this dependency and pass it down from 'A' to 'D' (assuming 'A' composes 'B', 'B' composes 'C', and so on). We have now made significant code changes just because we require logging in one class.
We therefore require an opaque mechanism for obtaining meta-dependencies. Two come to mind: Singleton and SL. The former has known limitations, primarily with regards to rigid scoping capabilities: at best a Singleton will use an Abstract Factory which is stored at application scope (ie. in a static variable). This allows some flexibility, but is not perfect.
A better solution would be to inject an IoC container into such classes, and then use SL from within that class to resolve these meta-dependencies from the container.
Hence catch 22: because the class is now being injected with an IoC container, then why not use it to resolve all other dependencies too?
I would greatly appreciate your thoughts :)

Because the class is now being injected with an IoC container, then why not use it to resolve all other dependencies too?
Using the service locator pattern completely defeats one of the main points of dependency injection. The point of dependency injection is to make dependencies explicit. Once you hide those dependencies by not making them explicit parameters in a constructor, you're no longer doing full-fledged dependency injection.
These are all constructors for a class named Foo (set to the theme of the Johnny Cash song):
Wrong:
public Foo() {
this.bar = new Bar();
}
Wrong:
public Foo() {
this.bar = ServiceLocator.Resolve<Bar>();
}
Wrong:
public Foo(ServiceLocator locator) {
this.bar = locator.Resolve<Bar>();
}
Right:
public Foo(Bar bar) {
this.bar = bar;
}
Only the latter makes the dependency on Bar explicit.
As for logging, there's a right way to do it without it permeating into your domain code (it shouldn't but if it does then you use dependency injection period). Amazingly, IoC containers can help with this issue. Start here.

Service Locator is an anti-pattern, for reasons excellently described at http://blog.ploeh.dk/2010/02/03/ServiceLocatorIsAnAntiPattern.aspx. In terms of logging, you could either treat that as a dependency just like any other, and inject an abstraction via constructor or property injection.
The only difference with log4net, is that it requires the type of the caller that uses the service. Using Ninject (or some other container) How can I find out the type that is requesting the service? describes how you can solve this (it uses Ninject, but is applicable to any IoC container).
Alternatively, you could think of logging as a cross cutting concern, which isn't appropriate to mix with your business logic code, in which case you can use interception which is provided by many IoC containers. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff647107.aspx describes using interception with Unity.

My opinion is that it depends. Sometimes one is better and sometimes another. But I'd say that generaly I prefer DI. There are few reasons for that.
When dependency is injected somehow into component it can be treated as part of its interface. Thus its easier for component's user to supply this dependecies, cause they are visible. In case of injected SL or Static SL that dependencies are hidden and usage of component is a bit harder.
Injected dependecies are better for unit testing cause you can simply mock them. In case of SL you have to setup Locator + mock dependencies again. So it is more work.

Sometimes logging can be implemented using AOP, so that it doesn't mix with business logic.
Otherwise, options are :
use an optional dependency (such as setter property), and for unit test you don't inject any logger. IOC container will takes care of setting it automatically for you if you run in production.
When you have a dependency that almost every object of your app is using ("logger" object being the most commmon example), it's one of the few cases where the singleton anti-pattern becomes a good practice. Some people call these "good singletons" an Ambient Context:
http://aabs.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/the-ambient-context-design-pattern-in-net/
Of course this context has to be configurable, so that you can use stub/mock for unit testing.
Another suggested use of AmbientContext, is to put the current Date/Time provider there , so that you can stub it during unit test, and accelerates time if you want.

This is regarding the 'Service Locator is an Anti-Pattern' by Mark Seeman.
I might be wrong here. But I just thought I should share my thoughts too.
public class OrderProcessor : IOrderProcessor
{
public void Process(Order order)
{
var validator = Locator.Resolve<IOrderValidator>();
if (validator.Validate(order))
{
var shipper = Locator.Resolve<IOrderShipper>();
shipper.Ship(order);
}
}
}
The Process() method for OrderProcessor does not actually follow the 'Inversion of Control' principle. It also breaks the Single Responsibility principle at the method level. Why should a method be concerned with instantiating the
objects(via new or any S.L. class) it needs to accomplish anything.
Instead of having the Process() method create the objects the constructor can actually have the parameters for the respective objects(read dependencies) as shown below. Then HOW can a Service Locator be any different from a IOC
container. AND it will aid in Unit Testing as well.
public class OrderProcessor : IOrderProcessor
{
public OrderProcessor(IOrderValidator validator, IOrderShipper shipper)
{
this.validator = validator;
this.shipper = shipper;
}
public void Process(Order order)
{
if (this.validator.Validate(order))
{
shipper.Ship(order);
}
}
}
//Caller
public static void main() //this can be a unit test code too.
{
var validator = Locator.Resolve<IOrderValidator>(); // similar to a IOC container
var shipper = Locator.Resolve<IOrderShipper>();
var orderProcessor = new OrderProcessor(validator, shipper);
orderProcessor.Process(order);
}

I have used the Google Guice DI framework in Java, and discovered that it does much more than make testing easier. For example, I needed a separate log per application (not class), with the further requirement that all my common library code use the logger in the current call context. Injecting the logger made this possible. Admittedly, all the library code needed to be changed: the logger was injected in the constructors. At first, I resisted this approach because of all the coding changes required; eventually I realized that the changes had many benefits:
The code became simpler
The code became much more robust
The dependencies of a class became obvious
If there were many dependencies, it was a clear indication that a class needed refactoring
Static singletons were eliminated
The need for session or context objects disappeared
Multi-threading became much easier, because the DI container could be built to contain just one thread, thus eliminating inadvertent cross-contamination
Needless to say, I am now a big fan of DI, and use it for all but the most trivial applications.

We've landed on a compromise: use DI but bundle top-level dependencies into an object avoiding refactoring hell should those dependencies change.
In the example below, we can add to 'ServiceDependencies' without having to refactor all derived dependencies.
Example:
public ServiceDependencies{
public ILogger Logger{get; private set;}
public ServiceDependencies(ILogger logger){
this.Logger = logger;
}
}
public abstract class BaseService{
public ILogger Logger{get; private set;}
public BaseService(ServiceDependencies dependencies){
this.Logger = dependencies.Logger; //don't expose 'dependencies'
}
}
public class DerivedService(ServiceDependencies dependencies,
ISomeOtherDependencyOnlyUsedByThisService additionalDependency)
: base(dependencies){
//set local dependencies here.
}

I know that people are really saying DI is the only good IOC pattern but I don't get this. I will try to sell SL a bit. I will use the new MVC Core framework to show you what I mean. First DI engines are really complex. What people really mean when they say DI, is use some framework like Unity, Ninject, Autofac... that do all the heavy lifting for you, where SL can be as simple as making a factory class. For a small fast project this is an easy way to do IOC without learning a whole framework for proper DI, they might not be that difficult to learn but still.
Now to the problem that DI can become. I will use a quote from MVC Core docs.
"ASP.NET Core is designed from the ground up to support and leverage dependency injection." Most people say that about DI "99% of your code base should have no knowledge of your IoC container." So why would they need to design from ground up if only 1% of code should be aware of it, didn't old MVC support DI? Well this is the big problem of DI it depends on DI. Making everything work "AS IT SHOULD BE DONE" takes a lot of work. If you look at the new Action Injection is this not depending on DI if you use [FromServices] attribute. Now DI people will say NO you are suppose to go with Factories not this stuff, but as you can see not even people making MVC did it right. The problem of DI is visible in Filters as well look at what you need to do to get DI in a filter
public class SampleActionFilterAttribute : TypeFilterAttribute
{
public SampleActionFilterAttribute():base(typeof(SampleActionFilterImpl))
{
}
private class SampleActionFilterImpl : IActionFilter
{
private readonly ILogger _logger;
public SampleActionFilterImpl(ILoggerFactory loggerFactory)
{
_logger = loggerFactory.CreateLogger<SampleActionFilterAttribute>();
}
public void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
_logger.LogInformation("Business action starting...");
// perform some business logic work
}
public void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context)
{
// perform some business logic work
_logger.LogInformation("Business action completed.");
}
}
}
Where if you used SL you could have done this with var _logger = Locator.Get();. And then we come to the Views. With all there good will regarding DI they had to use SL for the views. the new syntax #inject StatisticsService StatsService is the same as var StatsService = Locator.Get<StatisticsService>();.
The most advertised part of DI is unit testing. But what people and up doing is just testing there mock services with no purpose or having to wire up there DI engine to do real tests. And I know that you can do anything badly but people end up making a SL locator even if they don't know what it is. Where not a lot of people make DI without ever reading on it first.
My biggest problem with DI is that the user of the class must be aware of the inner workings of the class in other to use it.
SL can be used in a good way and has some advantages most of all its simplicity.

I know this question is a little old, I just thought I would give my input.
In reality, 9 times out of 10 you really don't need SL and should rely on DI. However, there are some cases where you should use SL. One area that I find myself using SL (or a variation, thereof) is in game development.
Another advantage of SL (in my opinion) is the ability to pass around internal classes.
Below is an example:
internal sealed class SomeClass : ISomeClass
{
internal SomeClass()
{
// Add the service to the locator
ServiceLocator.Instance.AddService<ISomeClass>(this);
}
// Maybe remove of service within finalizer or dispose method if needed.
internal void SomeMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("The user of my library doesn't know I'm doing this, let's keep it a secret");
}
}
public sealed class SomeOtherClass
{
private ISomeClass someClass;
public SomeOtherClass()
{
// Get the service and call a method
someClass = ServiceLocator.Instance.GetService<ISomeClass>();
someClass.SomeMethod();
}
}
As you can see, the user of the library has no idea this method was called, because we didn't DI, not that we'd be able to anyways.

If the example only takes log4net as dependency, then you only need to do this:
ILog log = LogManager.GetLogger(typeof(Foo));
There is no point to inject the dependency as log4net provides granular logging by taking the type (or a string) as parameter.
Also, DI is not correlated with SL. IMHO the purpose of ServiceLocator is for resolve optional dependencies.
Eg: If the SL provides an ILog interface, i will write logging daa.

For DI, do you need to have a hard reference to the injected type assembly? I don’t see anyone talking about that. For SL, I can tell my resolver where to load my type dynamically when it needed from a config.json or similar. Also, if your assembly contains several thousand types and their inheritance, do you need thousands cascading call to the service collection provider to register them? That’s where I do see much talk about. Most are talking about the benefit of DI and what it is in general, when it comes to how to implement it in .net, they presented with an extension method for adding reference to a hard linked types assembly. That’s not very decoupling to me.