I'm in the process of developing an ASP.NET MVC project, and after several weeks of research, I have a pretty good framework in place using StructureMap to register my dependencies at bootstrap time, create my controllers with the correct implementations, a custom model binder for passing data to my controller, etc.
After thinking about the data objects being passed to my controller actions, I began to wonder... should controller actions take in interfaces or concrete types?
It makes perfect sense that when my controller is being constructed by the controller factory, the dependencies should be passed into my constructor as interfaces, but what about the data objects created by the model binder? Should they be registered into my IoC container as well?
In code, it's only a few extra lines to hook it all up so the engineering overhead is pretty low. On the other hand, based on the nature of the framework, I'm not going to need to handle different implementations in the final product. But with everything I've learned about "future-proofing" my code, interface-driven design, designing for testability, loose coupling, and any other buzz words you can think of on this topic, my gut still tells me that interfaces should be the way to go.
I hope I've made some sense in my dilemma. Does anyone have any strong opinions one way or another on this topic?
TIA, -J
No way. You wouldn't be solving the problem IoC is meant to solve.
Viewmodels should be dumb as dirt. IoC is good for swapping implementation details. Since your view models are dumb what kind of implementation details can you possible swap? View Models also have narrow and non-orthogonal responsibilities very unlike traditional injectable classes like ILogger or IRepository.
IMHO this would be some serious over-engineering and the resulting complexity ( I'd anticipate service location responsibilities in your controllers for edit scenarios ) wouldn't be worth it.
Related
I've just started learning about IoC, and I understand the general use of it, but so far, the loading process from AutoFac, Ninject and Zenject seem to be based on loading an object not based on data.
In other words, ConsoleLogger is created when ILogger is requested, which does not require any special ID's, and that makes sense. However, what about when I want to load IUser for Id 4? Is there a standard IoC for handling that, or are the interfaces supposed to carry methods for loading based on Id?
For instance, am I supposed to have IUserManager, with LoadUser(int id) as a method? or is there some IoC structure for this as well?
Thanks.
[note: I did search the web for this, but my queries did not seem to pull up relevant information and the similar question search yields too many generic questions to filter]
IoC containers rules the way we link object's by dependencies, dependencies means some logic under Iterfaces, so IoC mostly works on Type level rather then Instance level.
Please note that types which has no any dependencies, interfaces as well as special scope requirements may be legally created by using "new" keyword for e.g. Data Transfer Objects (dto's).
In your case, you probably need a some kind of factory that can realize by parameters what kind of object caller is needed.
However, I'll suggest to you separate data from business logic as much is it can be separated.
I have created quite a few projects where my business logic has been directly accessing my data layer. Since its the only way I have been setting up my MVC projects, I cannot say for sure where the system has been lacking.
I would, however, like to improve on this. To remove many return functions from my controllers, there are 2 ways I see to achieve the same goal.
Including these return functions as methods of the model classes(doesnt make sense, since the datacontext would need to be initialized within every model).
Using a repository
After reading up a bit on repositories, I haven't come across any instances where "Thinning your controllers" may be a 'pro' to using a repository(a generic repository, could be related to this).
For an understanding of the answer I am looking for, I would like to know if, besides the above mentioned reason, I should use a repository. Is there really a need for a repository?In this case, my project will only be reading data (Full CRUD functionality wont be needed).
There is definitely a need for a repository. Every class should only have one real responsibility where possible; your controller's job is simply to 'give' information to the view. An additional benefit to this is if that if you do create a repository layer then, providing you make interfaces for them, you can make your solution a lot more testable. If your controller knows how to get data from a database (past using a repository - or similar) then your controller is "doing" more than one thing, which violates the single responsibility principle.
I used to use a generic repository pattern using the library SharpRepository, however I found that I needed more fine-grained control over what each of my repositories had access to (for example, there were some repositories I did not want to have mutation control and only be read-only). As a result I switched back to using non-generic repositories. Any half-decent IOC tool will be able to register your repositories based on convention (i.e, IFooRepository maps to FooRepository), so the number of classes is not really a factor.
As a commentor mentioned your title doesn't really sum up your question, so I'll summarize it for other answer authors:
Is there a benefit in using the repository pattern to simplify the controller?
I'm slightly new to Unity and IoC, but not to MVC. I've been reading and reading about using Unity with MVC and the only really useful thing I'm consistently seeing is the ability to get free DI with the controllers.
To go from this:
public HomeController() : this(new UserRepository())
{
}
public HomeController(IUserRepository userRepository)
{
this.UserRepository = userRepository;
}
To this:
public HomeController(IUserRepository userRepository)
{
this.UserRepository = userRepository;
}
Basically, allowing me to drop the no parameter constructor. This is great and all and I'm going to implement this for sure, but it doesn't seem like it's anything really that great for all the hype about IoC libraries. Going the way of using Unity as a service locator sounds compelling, but many would argue it's an anti pattern.
So my question is, with service locating out of the question and some DI opportunities with Views and Filters, is there anything else I gain from using Unity? I just want to make sure I'm not missing something wonderful like free DI support for all class constructors.
EDIT:
I understand the testability purpose behind using Unity DI with MVC controllers. But all I would have to do is add that one extra little constructor, nix Unity, and I could UnitTest just the same. Where is the great benefit in registering your repository types and having a custom controller factory when the alternative is simpler? The alternative being native DI. I guess I'm really wondering what is so great about Unity (or any IoC library) besides Service Locating which is bad. Is free Controller DI really the ONLY thing I get from Unity?
A good IoC container not only creates the concrete class for you, it examines the couplings between that type and other types. If there are additional dependencies, it resolves them and creates instances of all of the classes that are required.
You can do fancy things like conditional binding. Here's an example using Ninject (my preferred IoC):
ninjectKernel.Bind<IValueCalculator>().To<LinqValueCalculator>();
ninjectKernel.Bind<IValueCalculator>().To<IterativeValueCalculator().WhenInjectedInto<LimitShoppingCart>();
What ninject is doing here is creating an instance of IterativeValueCalculator when injecting into LimitShoppingCart and an instance of LinqValueCalulator for any other injection.
Greatest benefit is separation of concern (decoupling) and testability.
Regarding why Service Locator is considered bad(by some guys) you can read this blog-post by Mark Seeman.
Answering on your question What is so good in Unity I can say that apart from all the testability, loosely-coupling and other blah-blah-blah-s everyone is talking about you can use such awesome feature like Unity's Interception which allows to do some AOP-like things. I've used it in some of last projects and liked it pretty much. Strongly recommended!
p.s. Seems like Castle Windsor DI container has similar feature as well(called Interceptors). Other containers - not sure.
Besides testing (which is a huge benefit and should not be under estimated), dependency injection allows:
Maintainability: The ability to alter the behavior of your code with a single change.
If you decide to change the class that retrieves your users across all your controllers/services etc. without dependency injection, you need to update each and every constructor plus any other random new instances that are being created, provided you remember where each one lives. DI allows you to change one definition that is then used across all implementations.
Scope: With a single line of code you can alter your implementation to create a singleton, a class that is only created on each new web request or on each new thread
Readability: The use of dependency injection means that all your concrete classes are defined in one place. As a developer coming onto a project, I can quickly and easily see exactly which concrete classes are mapped to which interfaces and know that there are no hidden implemetations. It means I can not only read the code better but empowers me to have the confidence to develop against the code
Design: I believe using dependency injection helps create well designed code. You automatically code to interfaces, your code becomes cleaner because you haven't got strange blocks of code to help you test
And let's no forget...
Testing: Testing is huge! Dependency injection allows you to test your code without having to write code specifically for tests. Ok, you can create a new constructor, but what is stop anyone else using that constructor for a purpose it has not been intended for. What if another developer comes along six months later and adds production logic to your 'test' constructor. Ok, so you can make it internal but this can still be used by production code. Why give them the option.
My experience with IoC frameworks has been largely around Ninject. As such, the above is based on what I know of Ninject, however the same principles should remain the same across other frameworks.
No the main point is that you then have a mapping somewhere that specifies the concrete type of IUserRepository. And the reason that you might like that is that you can then create a UnitTest that specifies a mocked version of IUserRepository and execute your tests without changing anything in your controller.
Testability mostly, but id suggest looking at Ninject, it plays well with MVC. To get the full benefits of IOC you should really be combining this with Moq or a similar mocking framework.
Besides the testability, I think you can also add the extensibility as one of the advantages. One of the best practices of Software Development is "working with abstractions, not with implementations" and, while you can do it in several ways, Unity provides a very extensible and easy way to achieve this. By using this, you will be creating abstractions that will define the contracts that your component must comply. Say that you want to change totally the Repository that your application currently uses. With DI you just "swap" the component without the need of changing a single line of code on your application. If you are using hard references, you might need to change and recompile your application because of a component that is external to it (In a different layer)
So, bottom line, IMHO, using DI helps you to have pluggable components in your application and have a SOLID application design
I would like to hear from you what are de the main advantages and drawbacks in applying dependency injection at the controller level, and/or domain level.
Let me explain; if I receive a IUserRepository as param for my User, I may proceed in two ways:
I inject IUserRepository direct on my domain object, then I consume User at controller level without newing objects, it means, I get them ready from the DI container.
I inject IUserRepository on my controller (say, Register.aspx.cs), and there I new all my domain objects using dependencies that came from the DI container.
Yesterday, when I was talking to my friend, he told me that if you get your domain objects from the container you loose its lifecicle control, as the container manages it for you, he meant that it could be error prone when dealing with large xml configuration files. Opinion which disagree as you may have a tests that loops through every domain object within an assembly and then asks the container whether thats a singleton, request scope, session scope or app escope. It fails if any of them are true. A way of ensuring that this kind of issue wont happen.
I fell more likely to use the domain approach (1), as I see a large saving on repetitive lines of code at controller level (of course there will be more lines at XML file).
Another point my friend rose was that, imagine that for any reason youre obligated to change from di container A to B, and say that B has no support for constructor injection (which is the case for a seam container, Java, which manipulates BC or only do its task via setter injection), well, his point is that, if I have all my code at controller level I'm able to refactor my code in a smoothly maner, as I get access to tools like Auto-Refactoring and Auto-Complete, which is unavailable when youre dealing with XML files.
Im stuck at this point, as I should have a decision to make right away.
Which approach should I leverage my architecture?
Are there other ways of thinking???
Do you guys really think this is a relevant concern, should I worry about it?
If you want to avoid an anemic domain model you have to abandon the classic n-tier, n-layer CRUDY application architecture. Greg Young explains why in this paper on DDDD. DI is not going to change that.
CQRS would be a better option, and DI fits very well into the small, autonomous components this type of architecture tends to produce.
I'm not into the Java sphere, but according to your details in your questions it seems like you use some kind of MVC framework (since you deal with Controllers and domain). But I do have an opinion about how to use DI in a Domain Driven architecture.
First there are several ways of doing DDD: Some uses MVC in presentation and no application service layer between MVC and Domain. Other uses MVP (or MVVM) and no service layer. BUT I think some people will agree on me that you very rarely inject repositories (or other services...). I would recommend to inject Repositories in Command (using MVC and no service layer), Presenter (if you use MVP) or Application Services (if you use service layer). I mostly use an application layer where each service get the repositories they need injected in constructor.
Second I wouldn't worry about switching between IoC containers. Most container framework today support ctor injection and can auto-resolve parameters. Now I know that you're a Java developer and I'm a MS developer, but MS Practices team has a Common Service locator that can helps you in producing code that are extremely non-dependent of which container framework you uses. There is probably some similar in the Java community.
So go for option 2. Hope I pushed you into right direction.
i wind up having about 20 different parameters in the constructor of the model class, one for each service? Is this normal or a sign that something is off.
I think, categorically, that your controller is interacting with too many services. I've not seen your code - so I'm going off assumptions - but it seems to me that your controller is composing business logic by calling numerous "small" services, rather than drawing on fewer, "larger" services that compose business logic from the smaller services.
Have a look around for information about "orchestration services" vs "entity" or "capability" services and you'll see what I mean. If you create orchestration services that provide your controllers with the logic they require, your architecture is improved because your controllers really should not contain any business logic at all.
I really think that the number of services you consume is the issue here. IoC containers may go some way to resolve how you bind types to your injection parameters etc., but I think the problem is your architecture at this point.
You might try consolidating some services or think about refactoring the controller-view parts in to smaller scoped components. Also, a dependency injection style framework like Spring can help with things like this.
Allthough I don't know your setup. 20 seems a bit much I think you go against the SRP (Single responsibility priniciple). But since I can't see your code it is impossible to tell. If you really need all these services in that one model class then perhaps you need to put them in a factoryclass and use that as a parameter.
It is hard to give any good answer on this since we don't know your domain.
As #Matt said a dependency injection could help you here and sprint.NET is a good one and there are several others.
Seeing as you mention MVP in particular, you should at least look at Ent Lib 4.1 which now has Unity, Microsoft's take on DI. Their codeplex site is probably a good place to start if this is new.
There are also software factories that integrate with visual studio and give you tools for creating MVP for web sites as linked or web services. These come from pattern and practices too.