Develop Reference

Inject controllers that implements an interface

In ASP.NET Core MVC all classes that implement Controller will be automatically resolved and added to the MVC pipeline. These controllers can also be injected into the DI container using services.AddMvc().AddControllersAsServices();
I also have a controller that also implements a specific interface, which I can also add to the DI container: services.AddSingleton<IMyInterface, MyImpl>();
public class MyImpl : Controller, IMyInterface { }
However, becase this controller also implements Controller it has already been added in AddControllersAsServices() so adding it to the DI container one more time causes there to be two instances of this class.
The reason for this design is that I will have multiple implementations of IMyInterface and later need to decide which one to use, but each implementation will also need to be a controller in order to provide certain API endpoints (each controller will provide different endpoints, so there will be no conflicts there).
How can I ensure that only one instance of my class is instantiated, and how can I then get all implementations of IMyInterface?

As much as Im concerned Controller class is instantiated on each request, so even if you specify something like this (Ninject style):
services.Bind<IMyInterface, MyController>().To<MyController>().InSingletonScope();
It will be very bad. I mean, Controller is statefull, and you just mix everything up and breaking it's internal context.
What you might do is decorate through controller, instead of managing its lifetime yourself:
public class MyImpl : IMyInterface
{
}
public class MyController : Controller
{
private readonly IMyInterface _inner; //delegate implementation to this one.
public MyController(IMyInterface inner)
{
_inner = inner;
}
}
And injection:
services.Bind<IMyInterface>().To<MyImpl>().InSingletonScope();//this is your logic.
sercices.Bind<MyController>().ToSomethingWhatever();//this line is managed by ASP .NET, mentioned this only to show the idea

You might need remove the MyImpl inheriting from Controller class. Also you need to consider MyImpl as sevice rather than Controller.
Another option is that this can be achieved with IoC container like Autofac or Ninject or Castle Windsor. When using with Autofac it will be something like the below
Add the Autofac, Autofac ASP.Net MVC4 Integration using NuGet Package
Open GLobal.asax.cs
Make following changes in the Application_Start().
3a. Comment out the below code as
//WebApiConfig.Register(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration);
3b. Create a new method RegisterAutofac(), call this as the first method call inside Application_Start()
3c. Below with the sample implementation for RegisterAutofac() method
private void RegisterAutofac()
{
var builder = new Autofac.ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterControllers(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
builder.RegisterSource(new ViewRegistrationSource());
// The object to be injected in constructor etc.
builder.RegisterType<MyImpl>().As<IMyInterface>().SingleInstance();
var container = builder.Build();
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new AutofacDependencyResolver(container));
}

Correctly use Dependency Injection pattern [duplicate]

I'm currently working on a WinForms system (I know) where there's a lot of Constructor Injection when creating forms, but if those forms/views need to open another form, I find the DI container has been injected too so that we can locate the implementation of the desired view interface at runtime. e.g.
public partial class MyView : Form, IMyView
{
private readonly IDIContainer _container;
public MyView(IDIContainer container)
{
InitializeComponent();
_container = container;
}
public OpenDialogClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var dialog = container.Resolve<IDialogView>();
dialog.ShowDialog(this);
}
}
I'm aware that this is basically using the container as a service locator. I've been repeatedly told that this is considered an anti-pattern so I'd like to avoid this usage.
I could probably inject the view as part of the constructor like this :
public partial class MyView : Form, IMyView
{
private readonly IDialogView _dialog;
public MyView(IDialogView dialog)
{
InitializeComponent();
_dialog = dialog;
}
public OpenDialogClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
dialog.ShowDialog(this);
}
}
But what if the dialog view is quite expensive to instantiate?
It's been suggested that we create some kind of form factory which internally uses the DI container, but to me this seems like simply creating a wrapper around another service locator.
I know that at some point, something has to know how to create an IDialogView, so I'm thinking that either it's resolved when the composite root is created (probably not ideal if there are many forms and some or all are expensive to create), or the composite root itself has a way to resolve the dependency. In which case the composite root has to have a service-locator-like dependency? But then how would child forms create dialogs like this? Would they call up to the composite via, say, events, to open dialogs like this?
One particular problem I keep running up against is that the container is almost impossible to mock easily. This is partly what keeps me thinking about the form factory idea, even though it would just be a wrapper around the container. Is that a sensible reason?
Have I thought myself into a knot? Is there a simple way through this? Or do I just cut the knot and find something that works for me?

Or do I just cut the knot and find something that works for me?
Factory class:
public interface IDialogFactory {
IDialogView CreateNew();
}
// Implementation
sealed class DialogFactory: IDialogFactory {
public IDialogView CreateNew() {
return new DialogImpl();
}
}
// or singleton...
sealed class SingleDialogFactory: IDialogFactory {
private IDialogView dialog;
public IDialogView CreateNew() {
if (dialog == null) {
dialog = new DialogImpl();
}
return dialog;
}
}
Your code:
public partial class MyView : Form, IMyView {
private readonly IDialogFactory factory;
public MyView(IDialogFactory factory) {
InitializeComponent();
//assert(factory != null);
this.factory = factory;
}
public OpenDialogClick(object sender, EventArgs e) {
using (var dialog = this.factory.CreateNew()) {
dialog.ShowDialog(this);
}
}
}
Registration with SimpleInjector
container.RegisterSingle<IDialogFactory, DialogFactory>();
or using singleton version
container.RegisterSingle<IDialogFactory, SingleDialogFactory>();
container.RegisterSingle<IMyView, MyView>();

A local factory, satisfied with an implementation that uses the container and set up in the composition root is not a service locator, it is a dependency resolver.
The difference is as follows: the locator is defined and satisfied somewhere near the definition of the container. In a separate project, to use the locator, you need an external reference to the container infrastructure. This causes the project to rely on external dependency (the locator).
On the other hand, the dependency resolver is local to the project. It is used to satisfy dependencies in its close neighbourhood but it doesn't depend on anything external.
The composition root should not be used to resolve actual specific dependencies such as the one you are concerned about. Instead, the compositon root should set up implementations of all these local dependency resolvers that are used throughout the application. The more local resolver, the better - the MVC's constructor factory is a good example. On the other hand, WebAPI's resolver handles quite few of different services and it is still a good resolver - it is local in the webapi infrastructure, it doesn't depend on anything (rather - other webapi services depend on it) and it can be implemented in any possible way and set up in the Composition Root.
Some time ago I wrote a blog entry about it
http://www.wiktorzychla.com/2012/12/di-factories-and-composition-root.html
There you will find your issue discussed and an example of how you set up a factory aka resolver.

You definitely do not want to pass your DI container around your application. Your DI container should only be part of your Composition Root. You could, however, have a factory that uses the DI container within the Composition Root. So if Program.cs is where you are wiring everything up, you could simply define that factory class there.
WinForms was not designed with DI in mind; forms are generated and therefore need default constructors. This may or may not be an issue depending on which DI container you use.
I think in this case, the pain of using constructor injection in WinForms is greater than the pain of any pitfalls you may encounter while using a service locator. There's no shame in declaring a static method in your Composition Root (Program.cs) that wraps a call to your DI container to resolve your references.

I know this problem very well. Everything I learned about solution to this (and I learned A LOT) is more or less camouflaging service locator.

Setting up Dependency Injection using Unity to pass instance of class into a constructor

I am sure there are answers on here to my question, though I just don't either quite understand what I'm looking for or what I'm reading... Also, not 100% sure DI is what I should be using in this case.
I am attempting to use Unity for my DI. I am injecting dependency into ASP.Net Web API Controllers. And so far so good.
I am injecting Services into my controllers that the controller will require. For example, in one of my controllers I have:
private TransactionService _transactionService;
public TransactionsController(TransactionService transactionService)
{
_transactionService = transactionService;
}
In this case I am injecting an instance of TransactionService into the controller. This is all working.
My WebApiConfig.cs contains the following, which as i understand it actually performs the injection:
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<ServiceBase>(new HierarchicalLifetimeManager());
config.DependencyResolver = new UnityResolver(container);
I can show you my UnityResolver if needed.
Now the part I'm struggling with...
My services all inherit from an Abstract class ServiceBase - in its simplest for it looks like this:
public abstract class ServiceBase : IDisposable
{
internal Account _account;
public ServiceBase(){}
}
What I would like to do is create the Account during my injection process and pass it in somehow so that my injected services don't need to deal with instansiating the account.
The moment I try adding any constructors to my services to accept an Account I receive the message to ensure my controllers have a parameterless constructor.
So.. how do i set up my DI so that I can inject services into my controllers and also inject a pre-instantiated instance of Account into my services?
Update
I forgot to mention (sorry Wiktor) - I would like to NOT use Attributes if possible. It seems strange in my mind that we can use DI to unhook dependency and then go and put a bunch of dependent attributes everywhere. I quite possibly just don't understand the DI concept correctly, though this doesn't seem right to me

That should be simple, just make the additional property public and add the dependency attribute on it.
[Dependency]
public Account _account { get; set; }
Unity should be able to inject the attribute and you can even register the Account class in an ordinary way (for example with an injection factory).

I hope this would give some idea for you.
Create an interface for service base and declare Acccount as public property.
Interface for your service:
you can also inherit other interfaces.
public interface ITransactionService : IDisposable
{
IAccount Account{get;set;}
}
Implement it in your class:
public class TransactionService : ITransactionService{
private IAccount _account;
public IAccount Account
{
get
{if(_account==null)_account=new Account(); return _account;}
set
{_account=value;}
}
}
Now use the constructor at API controller as shown below:
private ITransactionService _transactionService;
public TransactionsController(ITransactionService transactionService)
{
_transactionService = transactionService;
}
Unity resolver:
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<ITransactionService,TransactionService>(new HierarchicalLifetimeManager());
config.DependencyResolver = new UnityResolver(container);
So using in this way where property injection and constructor injection used for reducing tightly coupled dependency.
It will be very easy for mocking the interface for unit testing.
You may also create an interface for Account class, so that it could be easy for mocking based on your use.

In case you don't want to use attributes, which I totally agree with, the best approach is to have ServiceBase accept the account parameter, like:
public abstract class ServiceBase {
private Account _account;
public ServiceBase(Account account) {
this._account = account;
}
}
You will have to declare the same constructor on your derived service as well TransactionService. When the controller is instantiated, Unity will correctly create the instance of Account class first and then pass it on to your TransactionService object via constructor injection. And you should register Account object using a life time manager to scope it to singleton.
Hope this helps.

Get the container instance for Simple Injector

I am using Simple Injector with a ASP.NET MVC project. I added the SimpleInjector.Integration.Web.Mvc nuget package. This adds SimpleInjectorInitializer class in App_Start folder and initializes the DI. The code looks something like
public static void Initialize()
{
// Did you know the container can diagnose your configuration?
// Go to: https://simpleinjector.org/diagnostics
var container = new Container();
//Container configuration code
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(
new SimpleInjectorDependencyResolver(container));
}
This configures the DI for the MVC controller correctly.
My question is, if I want to get the instance of the container in any of the controller\class to resolve some dependency manually how can I do it.
I have earlier worked on AutoFac and it has a dependency interface IComponentContext which can be injected into any class that needs to do any resolution manually.
Update:
Here is a scenario. My controller uses a service who initialization depends upon the input parameter passed in the controller method and hence the dependency cannot be instantiated during construction time.
I understand that this is somewhat an anti pattern for DI, but it is requirement at few places and hence injecting the DI container is next best thing. Simple Injector samples should use of static variable to share the container which i want to avoid and also it is not possible by the way SimpleInjectorInitializer works.

Except for any code that is part of the startup path of the application, no code should depend directly on the container (or a container abstraction, container facade, etc). This pattern is called Service Locator and Mark Seemann has a good explanation why this is a bad idea.
So components (such as Controllers) should not depend on the container directly, since this hides the used dependencies and makes classes harder to test. Furthermore your code starts to depend on an external framework (making it harder to change) or depending on an abstraction it doesn't need to know about.
My controller uses a service who initialization depends upon the input
parameter passed in the controller method and hence the dependency
cannot be instantiated during construction time
There's a general pattern for this problem: the abstract factory design pattern. The factory pattern allows you to delay the creation of types and allows you to pass in extra runtime parameters for the construction of a certain type. When you do this, your controller doesn't have to depend on Container and it prevents you from having to pass in a constructed container in your unit tests (DI frameworks should in general not be used in your unit test projects).
Do note however that letting your components require runtime data during creation is a code smell. Prevent doing that.
You might think that by doing this we are just moving the problem to the factory implementation. Although we are moving the dependency on the container into the factory implementation, we are in fact solving the problem because the factory implementation will be part of the application's Composition Root, which allows the application code itself oblivious to any DI framework.
So this is how I advice you to structure your code:
// Definition of the factory in the UI or BL layer
public interface ISomeServiceFactory
{
ISomeService Create(int inputParameter);
}
// Controller depending on that factory:
public class MyController : Controller
{
private readonly ISomeServiceFactory factory;
public MyController(ISomeServiceFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public ActionResult Index(int value)
{
// here we use that factory
var service = this.factory.Create(value);
}
}
In your composition root (the start up path) we define the factory implementation and the registration for it:
private class SomeServiceFactory : ISomeServiceFactory
{
private readonly Container container;
// Here we depend on Container, which is fine, since
// we're inside the composition root. The rest of the
// application knows nothing about a DI framework.
public SomeServiceFactory(Container container)
{
this.container = container;
}
public ISomeService Create(int inputParameter)
{
// Do what ever we need to do here. For instance:
if (inputParameter == 0)
return this.container.GetInstance<Service1>();
else
return this.container.GetInstance<Service2>();
}
}
public static void Initialize()
{
var container = new Container();
container.RegisterSingle<ISomeServiceFactory, SomeServiceFactory>();
}
Upon creation, the Container registers itself (using the call RegisterSingle<Container>(this)) so you can always inject the container into any component. That's similar to injecting the IComponentContext when working with Autofac. But the same holds for Autofac, Simple Injector, and any other container: you don't want to inject your container into components that are located outside the composition root (and there hardly ever is a reason for it).

Should creating a Unity Container be considered an expensive operation as it relates to resources and time?

I've recently started using Unity for dependency injections in .net.
I was under the impression that a Unity Container would most likely be a singleton or static member of a class. I saw another developer using it in a request handler that will receive a lot of traffic.
Is there some magic happening that keeps the cost low for creating a new Unity Container every time, or should this code be re-factored to only create the Unity container once?
This code is part of the implementing class of a .svc Service.
public string DoSomeWork(Request request)
{
var container = new UnityContainer().LoadConfiguration("MyContainer");
var handler = container.Resolve<RequestHandler>();
return handler.Handle(request);
}

Not 100% sure with Unity, but with most IoC containers, the creation of the container and especially the loading of container configuration is a reasonably expensive operation.
I have to question why this developer is utilizing the container in this manner however. Ideally the IoC container shouldn't even be a static or singleton object - it should be instantiated only to resolve the top level object of your dependency tree, and the rest of the objects in your application should be constructed automatically through dependency injection. In the case of your example, the class containing that method ideally would have the RequestHandler (ideally an interface of this) injected into it through the constructor so that class does not need to know about the IoC container.

This is not the right way to use an IOC container - basically your are using it as a service locator, but this will cause dependencies to the IOC container to be sprinkled all over the code base.
What you should do is have one central spot in your codebase where all dependencies are resolved and then use dependency injection (DI) to propagate the resolved concrete classes down the chain, i.e via constructor injection. So your class really should look something like this:
public class Foo
{
private readonly IRequestHandler _handler;
public Foo(IRequestHandler handler)
{
_handler = handler;
}
public string DoSomeWork(Request request)
{
return _handler.Handle(request);
}
}