Develop Reference

How should common references be passed around in an assembly?

I am trying to get rid off static classes, static helper methods and singleton classes in my code base. Currently, they are pretty much spread over the whole code, especially so for the utility classes and the logging library. This is mainly due to the need for mocking ability as well as object-oriented design and development concerns, e.g. extensibility. I might also need to introduce some form of dependency injection in the future and would like to leave an open door for that.
Basically, the problem I have encountered is about the method of passing the commonly used references around. These are objects that are used by almost every class in the code base, such as the logging interface, the utility (helper) class interface and maybe an instance of a class that holds an internal common state for the assembly which most classes relate to.
There are two options, as far as I'm aware. One is to define a class (or an interface) that stores the common references, a context if you will, and pass the context to each object that is created. The other option is to pass each common reference to almost every class as a separate parameter which would increase the number of parameters of the class constructors.
Which one of these methods is better, what are the pros and cons of each, and is there a better method for this task?

I generally go with the context object approach, and pass the context object either to an object's constructor, or to a method -- depending on which one makes the most sense.
The context object pattern can take a few forms.
You can define an interface that has exactly the members you need, or you can generate a sort of container class. For example, when writing loosely-coupled components, I tend to have each component I implement have a matching interface, so that it can be reimplemented if desired. Then I register the objects on a "manager" object, something like this:
public interface IServiceManager
{
public T GetService<T>();
public T RequireService<T>();
public void RegisterService<T>(T service);
public void UnregisterService<T>(T service);
}
Behind the scenes there is a map from type to object, which allows me to extremely quickly assemble a large set of diverse components into a working whole. Each component asks for the others by interface, and the manager object is what glues them together. (If you correctly author your components, you can even swap out one service for another while the process is running!)
One would register a service something along these lines:
class FooService : IFooService { }
// During process start-up:
serviceManager.RegisterService<IFooService>(new FooService());
There is more overhead with this approach than with the flat-interface approach due to the dictionary lookup, but it has allowed me to build very sophisticated systems that can be easily redeployed with different service implementations. (And, as is usual, any bottlenecks I encounter are never in looking up a service object from a dictionary, but somewhere else such as the database.)

You're going to get varied opinions, but generally passing a separate parameter to the constructor for each dependency is preferred for a few reasons:
It clearly defines the actual dependencies for a class - with a "context" you don't know which parts of the context are used without digging into the code.
Generally having a lot of parameters to a constructor is a design smell, so using constructor injection helps you sniff out design flaws.
When testing you can mock out individual dependencies versus having to mock an entire context

I would suggest passing as a parameter to the constructor. This has great advantage for both dependency injection and unit testability ( mocking).

Am I confused about interfaces?

I am maintaining an ASP.NET MVC project. In the project the original developer has an absolute ton of interfaces. For example: IOrderService, IPaymentService, IEmailService, IResourceService. The thing I am confused about is each of these is only implemented by a single class. In other words:
OrderService : IOrderService
PaymentService : IPaymentService
My understanding of interfaces has always been that they are used to create an architecture in which components can be interchanged easily. Something like:
Square : IShape
Circle : IShape
Furthermore, I don't understand how these are being created and used. Here is the OrderService:
public class OrderService : IOrderService
{
private readonly ICommunicationService _communicationService;
private readonly ILogger _logger;
private readonly IRepository<Product> _productRepository;
public OrderService(ICommunicationService communicationService, ILogger logger,
IRepository<Product> productRepository)
{
_communicationService = communicationService;
_logger = logger;
_productRepository = productRepository;
}
}
These objects don't seem be ever be created directly as in OrderService orderService = new OrderService() it is always using the interface. I don't understand why the interfaces are being used instead of the class implementing the interface, or how that even works. Is there something major that I am missing about interfaces that my google skills aren't uncovering?

This particular design pattern is typically to facilitate unit testing, as you can now replace OrderService with a TestOrderService, both of which are only referenced as IOrderService. This means you can write TestOrderService to provide specific behavior to a class under test, then sense whether the class under test is doing the correct things.
In practice, the above is often accomplished by using a Mocking framework, so that you don't actually hand-code a TestOrderService, but rather use a more concise syntax to describe how it should behave for a typical test, then have the mocking framework dynamically generate an implementation for you.
As for why you never see 'new OrderService' in the code, it's likely that your project is using some form of Inversion of Control container, which facilitates automatic Dependency Injection. In other words, you don't have to construct OrderService directly, because somewhere you've configured that any use of IOrderService should automatically be fulfilled by constructing a singleton OrderService and passing it in to the constructor. There are a lot of subtleties here and I'm not exactly sure how your dependency injection is being accomplished (it doesn't have to be automatic; you can also just construct the instances manually and pass them in through the constructors.)

That's not the only use of interfaces, in MVC they are being used to decouple contract from implementation. To understand about MVC you need to read up a bit on the related topics such as separation of concerns and inversion of control (IoC).The actual act of creating an object to be passed to OrderService constructor is handled by IoC container based on some predefined mapping.

These objects don't seem be ever be created directly as in OrderService orderService = new
OrderService()
So waht?
Point is that SOMEONE calls the OrderService constructor and THE CALLER is respónsible for creating them. He hands them over.
I don't understand why the interfaces are being used instead of the class implementing the
interface
Because you want not to know the class - it may change, be external, be configurable using an IOC container and the programmer decided to not require even a common base class. THe less assumptions you make about how someone implements used utility classes, the better.
Is there something major that I am missing about interfaces that my google skills aren't
uncovering?
No, bu a good book about OO programming would help more than random google snippets. This baiscally falls into the architecture area and .NET basics (for the first part).

It's good practice to program against interfaces rather than objects. This question gives good reasons why, but some reasons include allowing the implementation to change (ex. for testing).
Just because there's currently only 1 class that implements the interface doesn't mean that it can't change in the future.
Furthermore, I don't understand how these are being created and used.
This is called dependency injection and basically means that the class doesn't need to know how or where to instantiate it's dependencies from, someone else will handle it.

These are service interfaces, which encapsulate some kind of externality. You often have just a single implementation of them in your main project, but your tests use simpler implementations that don't depend on that external stuff.
For example if your payment service contacts paypal to verify payments, you don't want to do that in a test of unrelated code. Instead you might replace them with a simple implementation that always returns "payment worked" and check that the order process goes through, and another implementation that returns "payment failed" and check that the order process fails too.
To avoid depending on the implementation, you don't create instances yourself, you accept them in the constructor. Then the IoC container that creates your class will fill them in. Look up Inversion of Control.
Your project has probably some code that sets up the IoC container in its startup code. And that code contains information about which class to create when you want an implementation of a certain interface.

Dependency Injection what´s the big improvement?

Currently I'm trying to understand dependency injection better and I'm using asp.net MVC to work with it. You might see some other related questions from me ;)
Alright, I'll start with an example controller (of an example Contacts Manager asp.net MVC application)
public class ContactsController{
ContactsManagerDb _db;
public ContactsController(){
_db = ContactsManagerDb();
}
//...Actions here
}
Allright, awesome that's working. My actions can all use the database for CRUD actions. Now I've decided I wanted to add unit testing, and I've added another contructor to mock a database
public class ContactsController{
IContactsManagerDb _db;
public ContactsController(){
_db = ContactsManagerDb();
}
public ContactsController(IContactsManagerDb db){
_db = db;
}
//...Actions here
}
Awesome, that's working to, in my unit tests I can create my own implementation of the IContactsManagerDb and unit test my controller.
Now, people usually make the following decision (and here is my actual question), get rid of the empty controller, and use dependency injection to define what implementation to use.
So using StructureMap I've added the following injection rule:
x.For<IContactsManagerDb>().Use<ContactsManagerDb>();
And ofcourse in my Testing Project I'm using a different IContactsManagerDb implementation.
x.For<IContactsManagerDb>().Use<MyTestingContactsManagerDb>();
But my question is, **What problem have I solved or what have I simplified by using dependency injection in this specific case"
I fail to see any practical use of it now, I understand the HOW but not the WHY? What's the use of this? Can anyone add to this project perhaps, make an example how this is more practical and useful?

The first example is not unit testable, so it is not good as it is creating a strong coupling between the different layers of your application and makes them less reusable. The second example is called poor man dependency injection. It's also discussed here.
What is wrong with poor man dependency injection is that the code is not autodocumenting. It doesn't state its intent to the consumer. A consumer sees this code and he could easily call the default constructor without passing any argument, whereas if there was no default constructor it would have immediately been clear that this class absolutely requires some contract to be passed to its constructor in order to function normally. And it is really not to the class to decide which specific implementation to choose. It is up to the consumer of this class.

Dependency injection is useful for 3 main reasons :
It is a method of decoupling interfaces and implementations.
It is good for reducing the amount of boiler plate / factory methods in an application.
It increases the modularity of packages.
As an example - consider the Unit test which required access to a class, defined as an interface. In many cases, a unit test for an interface would have to invoke implementations of that interface -- thus if an implementation changed, so would the unit test. However, with DI, you could "inject" an interface's implementation at run time into a unit test using the injection API - so that changes to implementations only have to be handled by the injection framework, not by individual classes that use those implementations.
Another example is in the web world : Consider the coupling between service providers and service definitions. If a particular component needs access to a service - it is better to design to the interface than to a particular implementation of that service. Injection enables such design, again, by allowing you to dynamically add dependencies by referencing your injection framework.
Thus, the various couplings of classes to one another are moved out of factories and individual classes, and dealt with in a uniform, abstract, reusable, and easily-maintained manner when one has a good DI framework. The best tutorials on DI that I have seen are on Google's Guice tutorials, available on YouTube. Although these are not the same as your particular technology, the principles are identical.

First, your example won't compile. var _db; is not a valid statement because the type of the variable has to be inferred at declaration.
You could do var _db = new ContactsManagerDb();, but then your second constructor won't compile because you're trying to assign an IContactsManagerDb to an instance of ContactsManagerDb.
You could change it to IContactsManagerDb _db;, and then make sure that ContactsManagerDb derives from IContactsManagerDb, but then that makes your first constructor irrelvant. You have to have the constructor that takes the interface argument anyways, so why not just use it all the time?
Dependency Injection is all about removing dependancies from the classes themselves. ContactsController doesn't need to know about ContactsManagerDb in order to use IContactsManagerDb to access the Contacts Manager.

C# - Is adding systematically an interface a good practice?

In the project I'm working on, I've noticed that for every entity class there is an interface. It seems that the original motivation was to only expose interfaces to other project/solutions.
I find this completely useless, and I don't see the point in creating an interface for every class. By the way, those classes don't have any methods just properties and they don't implement the same interface.
Am I wrong? Or is it a good practice?
Thx

I tend to create an interface for almost every class mainly because of unit testing - if you use dependency injection and want to unit test a class that depends on the class in question, than the standard way is to mock an instance of the class in question (using one of the mocking frameworks, e.g. Rhino-Mocks). However, practically it is only possible only for interfaces, not concrete implementations (yes, theoretically you can mock a concrete class, but there are many painful limitations).

There may be more to the setup than described here that justifies the overhead of interfaces. Generally they're very useful for dependency injection and overall separation of concerns, unit testing and mocking, etc.. It's entirely possible that they're not being used for this purpose (or any other constructive purpose, really) in your environment, though.
Is this generated code, or were these manually created? If the former, I suspect the tool generating them is doing so to prepare for such a use if the developer were so inclined. If the latter, maybe the original designer had something in mind?
For my own "best practices" I almost always do interface-driven development. It's generally a good practice to separate out concerns from one another and use the interfaces as contracts between them.

Exposing interfaces publicly has value in creating a loosely-coupled, behaviour-driven architecture.
Creating an interface for every class - especially if the interface just exposes every public method the class has in a single interface - is a bad implementation of the concept, and (in my experience) leads to more complex code and no improvement in architecture.

It's useful for tests.
A method may take a parameter of type ISomething, and it can be either SqlSomething or XmlSomething, where ISomething is the interface, and SqlSomething and XmlSomething are classes that implement the interface, depending whether you're doing tests (you pass XmlSomething in this case) or running the application (SqlSomething).
Also, when building a universal project, that can work on any database, but aren't using an ORM tool like LINQ (maybe because the database engine might not support LINQ to SQL), you define interfaces, with methods that you use in the application. Later on, developers will implement the interfaces to work with the database, create MySQLProductRepository class, PostgreSQLProductRepository class, that both inherit the same interface, but have different functionality.
In the application code any method takes a parameter a repository object of type IProductRepository, which can be anything.

IMHO it sounds that writing interfaces for no reason is pointless. You cant be totally closed minded but in general doing things that are not immediatly useful tend to accumulate as waste.
The agile concept of Its either adding value or taking value comes to mind.
What happens when you remove them? If nothing then ... what are they there for?
As a side note. Interfaces are extremely useful for Rhino Mocks, dependency injection and so on ...

If those classes only have properties, then interfaces don't add much value, because there's no behavior that is being abstracted.
Interfaces can be useful for abstraction, so the implementation can be mocked in unit tests. But in a well-designed application the business/domain entities should have very little reasons to be mocked. Business/domain services on the other hand are a excellent candidate for interface abstraction.
I have created interfaces for my entities once, and it didn't add any value at all. It only made me realize my design was wrong.

It seems to be an interface is superior to an abstract base class primarily if/when it is necessary to have a class which implements the interface but inherits from some other base class. Multiple inheritance is not allowed, but multiple interface implementations are.
The main caveat I see with using interfaces rather than abstract classes (beyond the extra source code required) is that changing anything in an interface necessitates recompilation of any and all code which uses that interface. By contrast, adding public members to a base class generally only requires recompilation of the base class itself.(*)
(*) Due to the way extension methods are handled, adding members to a class won't "require" recompiling code which uses that class, but may cause code which uses extension methods on the class to change meaning the next time it (the extension-method-using code) is recompiled.

There is no way to tell the future and see if you're going to need to program against an interface down-the-road. But if you decide later to make everything use an interface and, say, a factory to create instances of unknown types (any type that implements the interface), then it is quicker to restrict everyone to programming against an interface and a factory up-front than to replace references to MyImpl with references to IMyInterface later, etc.
So when writing new software, it is a judgment call whether to program against an interface or an implementation, unless you are familiar with what is likely to happen to that kind of software based on previous experiences.
I usually keep it "in flux" for a time whether or not I have an interface, a base class, or both, and even whether the base class is abstract (it usually is). I will work on a project (usually a Visual Studio solution with about 3 to 10 projects in it) for a while (a couple of days, maybe) before I refactor and / or ask for a second opinion. Once a final decision is reached and the code is refactored and tested, I tell fellow devs that it is ready for use.

For unit testing, it's either interfaces everywhere or virtual methods everywhere.
Sometimes I miss Java :)

Should static classes be avoided because it makes Dependency Injection Difficult?

Somebody tasked with creating a "Core" set of libraries created a set of static classes providing all sorts of utilities from logging, auditing and common database access methods.
I personally think this stinks because we now have a Core set of libraries that are hard to test because I can't mock / stub these classes or do any injection into their constructors.
I suppose I can use TypeMock to stub these out but I'd rather do it for free.
What do you think?
Edit
If you don't think they're hard to test could you give an example of how you would test them. These static classes instantiate other types to do their functions.

Static classes (methods) do not necessarily have to be avoided as long as they have no hidden dependencies. Of course you can pass dependencies into a static method - it just should not be stored internally and modify the behaviour of later calls.
There should be no problem to test them in this case, too.
But I have a bad feeling about the cases you mentioned, too. I know some of these static "wrapper" utility classes - and in most cases they really stink :)
EDIT:
Maybe I should clarify. I would use static classes/methods only for very small distinguished tasks. When static classes start to initialize dependencies they certainly should be avoided. If you can't test these static classes they already have a too big job to do.
In the first answer of this question are the arguments against static classes as you mentioned.

How hard would it be to modify those static classes to utilize Dependency Injection? If you make the DI optional (if possible), you can essentially make a situation where you can use the static classes for mocking, just by properly doing the DI, while not changing any of the "normal" behavior.

Following is from Journal of Object Technology: Decoupling responsibilities from static methods for fine-grained configurability
Static methods pose obstacles to the development of tests by hardwiring instance creation. A study of 120 static methods in open-source Smalltalk code shows that out of the 120 static methods, only 6 could not equally well be implemented as instance methods, but were not, thus burdening their caller with the implicit dependency on these static methods