Develop Reference

How do I use Dependency Injection in C# .NET 6 application to pass in different instances of the same object with same interface?

I am creating an Azure Function App in Visual Studio with C# and .NET 6.
I have a service I created (CosmosDBService) that implements the interface ICosmosDBService:
public class CosmosDbService : ICosmosDbService
{
private Container? _container = null;
public CosmosDbService(
CosmosClient cosmosDbClient,
string databaseName,
string containerName)
{
_container = cosmosDbClient.GetContainer(databaseName, containerName);
}
I want to pass two different instances of this service into the Function App. Each service instance would represent a different container.
How would I set this up in Startup:FunctionsApp class using the FunctionsHostBuilder?

Default DI container does not support named such scenarios so you have next options - either create separate interfaces and implementations (and register/resolve them) for each databaseName-containerName pair or create a factory and use it to generate desired CosmosDbService instance:
public interface ICosmosDbServiceFactory
{
ICosmosDbService Create(string databaseName, string containerName);
}
class CosmosDbServiceFactory : ICosmosDbServiceFactory
{
private readonly IServiceProvider _serviceProvider;
public CosmosDbServiceFactory(IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
_serviceProvider = serviceProvider;
}
public ICosmosDbService Create(string databaseName, string containerName) => new CosmosDbService(
_serviceProvider.GetRequiredService<CosmosClient>(),
databaseName,
containerName
);
}
Register it with appropriate lifetime and inject it into corresponding class and use it in the constructor to resolve required ICosmosDbService instances.

You can do this, but I wouldn't recommend it. For instance in your start up if you had the following code:
services.AddSingleton<ICosmosDbService, CosmosDbService>();
services.AddSingleton<ICosmosDbService, OtherCosmosDbService>();
both instances would be registered in the Di container. If you had a class that depends on this interface, the following constructor would result in OtherCosmosDbService being injected:
public class SomeClass {
private readonly ICosmosDbService _service;
public SomeClass(ICosmosDbService service){
_service = service; // This would be OtherCosmosDbService
}
}
Both would be registered and in this instance, the last one registered "wins". If you wanted to get both then you could change the constructor to this:
public SomeClass(IEnumerable<ICosmosDbService> services){
// Write logic to handle finding which one you want
}
Honestly, I would go with Guru Stron's suggestion of creating separate interfaces for each container and registering them separately.

I think your design needs to be more granular - trying to access multiple containers (possibly in multiple COSMOS databases) with one interface/class goes against the SOLID principle of single responsibilty. Think about your domain and work from there 'downwards'
public interface ICustomers
{
public IEnumerable<Customer> GetCustomers();
}
public interface IProducts
{
public IEnumerable<Product> GetProducts();
}
public class CustomersInCosmosDatabase : ICustomers
{
private readonly CosmosClient cosmosClient;
public CustomersInCosmosDatabase(CosmosClient cosmosClient)
{
this.cosmosClient = cosmosClient;
}
public IEnumerable<Customer> GetCustomers()
{
var container = cosmosClient.GetContainer("customerDatabaseId", "customerContainerId");
return container.GetItemLinqQueryable<Customer>();
}
}
public class ProductsInCosmosDatabase : IProducts
{
private readonly CosmosClient cosmosClient;
public ProductsInCosmosDatabase(CosmosClient cosmosClient)
{
this.cosmosClient = cosmosClient;
}
public IEnumerable<Product> GetProducts()
{
var container = cosmosClient.GetContainer("productDatabaseId", "prodcutContainerId");
return container.GetItemLinqQueryable<Product>();
}
}
and your registrations become:
serviceCollection.AddAzureClients(clientBuilder =>
{
clientBuilder.AddClient<CosmosClient, CosmosClientOptions>((o) =>
new CosmosClient("connectionString", new DefaultAzureCredential()));
});
serviceCollection.AddTransient<ICustomers, CustomersInCosmosDatabase>();
serviceCollection.AddTransient<IProducts, ProductsInCosmosDatabase>();
You are then in the business of injecting Customer collections and Product collections everywhere NOT CosmosDBServices.

Single Responsibility Principle Concerns (Am I thinking about refactoring properly)

My current class PropertyManager looks like this:
public class PropertyManager : IDisposable
{
private readonly IPropertyRepo _propertyRepo;
private readonly IUserTypeRepo _userTypeRepo;
public PropertyManager(IPropertyRepo propertyRepo, IUserTypeRepo userTypeRepo = null)
{
if (propertyRepo == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("propertyRepo");
_propertyRepo = propertyRepo;
if (userTypeRepo != null)
_userTypeRepo = userTypeRepo;
}
}
My Property Manager will use the _userTypeRepo in some method to accomplish some task. I think I want to implment a rule that says "Each Manager(Service,Factory,etc) should be responsible for its own repository."
The idea:
The PropertyManager, because it needs to do something with the UserTypeRepo, I should be using the UserManager for such activities.
As such, this means that I will not provide a repo when creating an instance of the UserManager (i.e., var usrMgr = new UserManager(); // no repo). Instead, the UserManager will use the default constructor which will create a new instance of the IUserTypeRepo and provide a new instance of a UserManager and then it can do its work.
I think this accomplishes some design principle such as Separation of Concerns and the Single Responsibility, but then I may be getting away from my Dependency Injection design pattern as the new Managers would now have multiple constructors and look like this:
public class PropertyManager : IDisposable
{
private readonly IPropertyRepo _propertyRepo;
public PropertyManager(){
// use the default repo
_propertyRepo = new PropertyRepo();
}
// Used from Controller or Unit Testing
public PropertyManager(IPropertyRepo propertyRepo)
{
if (propertyRepo == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("propertyRepo");
}
}
public class UserManager : IDisposable
{
private readonly IUserRepo _userRepo;
public UserManager(){
// use the default repo
_userRepo = new UserRepo();
}
// Used from Controller or Unit Testing
public UserManager(IUserRepo userRepo)
{
if (userRepo == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("userRepo");
}
}
Would this be frowned upon? Or am I on the right track? In either case, why and thanks?
Update. After reading Yawar's post I decided to update my post and I think I have a relevant concern.
Let's think of a real world example of the above. I have a PropertyManager in real life named "Robert" one of the jobs he performs each morning at work is to Open() the Property (i.e., he unlocks the Property he is the Manager of). I also have a UserManger who manages people who visit the Property and her name is "Sarah" she has a function that she does called EnterProperty() (which is what she does in the morning when she physically walks into the building).
Rule: UserManager has a dependency on PropertyManager when using the EnterProperty()
This looks like this according to all accepted standards:
Property Manager
class PropertyManager : IPropertyManager
{
private readonly IPropertyRepo _propertyRepo;
public PropertyManager(IPropertyRepo propertyRepo)
{
if (propertyRepo == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("propertyRepo");
this._propertyRepo = propertyRepo;
}
// this is when Robert opens the property in the morning
public void Open()
{
_propertyRepo.Open();
}
// this is when Robert closes the property in the evening
public void Close()
{
_propertyRepo.Close();
}
// this answers the question
public bool IsOpen()
{
return _propertyRepo.IsOpen();
}
}
User Manager
class UserManager : IUserManager
{
private readonly IPropertyRepo _propertyRepo;
private readonly IUserRepo _userRepo;
public UserManager(IUserRepo userRepo, IPropertyRepo propertyRepo = null)
{
if (userRepo == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("userRepo");
this._userRepo = userRepo;
if (propertyRepo != null)
this._propertyRepo = propertyRepo;
}
// this allows Sarah to physically enter the building
public void EnterProperty()
{
if(_propertyRepo.IsOpen())
{
Console.WriteLine("I'm in the building.");
}else{
_propertyRepo.Open(); // here is my issue (explain below)
Console.WriteLine("Even though I had to execute the Open() operation, I'm in the building. Hmm...");
}
}
}
Web API Controller
{
public void OpenForBusiness(){
private const IPropertyRepo propertyRepo = new PropertyRepo();
private IPropertyManager propertyManager = new PropertyManager(propertyRepo);
private IUserManager userManager = new UserManager(new UserRepo(), propertyRepo);
// Robert, the `PropertyManager`, opens the `Property` in the morning
propertyManager.Open();
// Sarah, the `UserManager`, goes into `Property` after it is opened
userManager.EnterProperty();
}
}
Now, everything is cool and I can walk away and I now have a Repository Pattern which use Dependency Injection which supports TDD and not tightly coupled classes among other benefits.
However, is the truly realistic? (explain why I ask in second)
I think a more real-world (realistic) approach is one that does:
Web API Controller
public void Method1()
{
private IPropertyManager propMgr = new PropertyManager(new PropertyRepo());
private IUserManager userMgr = new UserManager(new UserRepo()); // no dependencies on any repository but my own
// 1. Robert, the `PropertyManager`, opens the `Property`
propMgr.Open();
// 2. Check to see if `Property` is open before entering
// choice a. try to open the door of the `Property`
// choice b. call or text Robert, the `PropertyManager`, and ask him if he opened the `Property` yet, so...
if(propMgr.IsOpen()){
// 3. Sarah, the `UserManager`, arrives at work and enters the `Property`
userMgr.EnterProperty();
}else{
// sol, that sucks, I can't enter the `Property` until the authorized person - Robert - the `PropertyManager` opens it
// right???
}
}
the EnterProperty() method on the UserManager now looks like this:
// this allows Sarah to physically enter the building
public void EnterProperty()
{
Console.WriteLine("I'm in the building.");
}
The promised explanation from above:
If we think in real-world terms we must agree that the later is preferred over the former. When thinking of a Repository lets say this is the definition of ones self (i.e., one's Person) (i.e., the UserRepo having all the data related to the User, is to the UserManager as the DNA, Heartbeat, Brain Wave Pattern, etc. is to a Human (the HumanRepo). As such, allowing the UserManager to know about the PropertyRepo and having access to its Open() method violates all Real-World security principles and Business Rules. In reality this says that through My Contructor() I can get an Interface Representation of a PropertyRepo that I can use any way I see fit. This is synonymous to the following logic of the HumanRepo:
I, Sarah - a UserManager - through a new instance of myself with the satisfaction of the PropertyRepo through my Constructor() create a Hologram Interface of Robert, the PropertyManager that I can use any way I see fit. Granted right now I only want to use the IsOpen() method of the PropertyRepo I actually use the Open() method to do it myself if Robert has not yet performed his duty. This is a security concern to me. In the real-world this says I don't have to wait for Robert to open the Property and use the Holocopy of him and implement his Open() method to get access.
That doesn't seem right.
I think with the last implementation I get SoC, SRP, DI, Repository Pattern, TDD, and Logical Security and as close to a real-world implementation as possible.
What do you all think?

I think I agree with your SoC and breaking the PropertyManager class into PropertyManager and UserManager classes. You are almost there.
I would just refactor as shown below:
public class PropertyManager : IDisposable, IPropertyManager
{
private readonly IPropertyRepo _propertyRepo;
// Used from Controller or Unit Testing
public PropertyManager(IPropertyRepo propertyRepo)
{
if (propertyRepo == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("propertyRepo");
this._propertyRepo = propertyRepo;
}
}
public class UserManager : IDisposable, IUserManager
{
private readonly IUserRepo _userRepo;
// Used from Controller or Unit Testing
public UserManager(IUserRepo userRepo)
{
if (userRepo == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("userRepo");
this._userRepo = userRepo;
}
}
Note: Just extract IPropertyManager & IUserManager so that the calling classes will depend upon the interfaces and provide the implementation.
Creating parameterless constructor is useless if you want to (you should) force the client to provide the concrete implementation of IPropertyRepo and IUserRepo interfaces.
public PropertyManager(){
// use the default repo
_propertyRepo = new PropertyRepo();
}
I dont think you would need
if (propertyRepo == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("propertyRepo");
or
if (userRepo == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("userRepo");
as IPropertyRepo and IUserRepo will be resolved via a IoC at the startup of your application (say its MVC then before calling the controller IoC will resolve them) so no need to check for null. I have never checked the dependencies for null in my code.
From what you have posted here thats pretty much it.
Unit of Work pattern is used for repository layer not in the manager layer. I would delete that from the title.
Hope this helps!

I think this accomplishes some OOP goal such as Separating Concerns
and the Single Responsibility Principle.
The result is opposite. Now, PropertyManager tightly couples to PropertyRepo; previously, they were loosely coupled.
First approach is better than the latter one. However, PropertyManager and UserManager should not create other objects on which they rely to do their work. The responsibility for creating and managing object should be offloaded to IoC container.
Interfaces describe what can be done, whereas classes describe how it is done. Only classes involve the implementation details—interfaces are completely unaware of how something is accomplished. Because only classes have constructors, it follows that constructors are an implementation detail. An
interesting corollary to this is that, aside from a few exceptions, you can consider an appearance of the new keyword to be a code smell. - Gary McLean Hall
Answer for Updated Question:
In your updated question, you combine Service/Manager and somewhat Domain into a single class - PropertyManager, UserManager. It becomes personal preference.
I personally like to keep them separate. In addition, I like to use Role based and Claim based authorization. Let me use my GitHub sample project as a reference. Please feel free to clone it.
User Domain
User class is also used by Entity Framework Code First Fluent API.
public partial class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string UserName { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
}
User Service
public class UserService : IUserService
{
private readonly IRepository<User> _repository;
public UserService(IRepository<User> repository)
{
_repository = repository;
}
public async Task<IPagedList<User>> GetUsersAsync(UserPagedDataRequest request)
{
...
}
}
Action Method
Notice that UI related Business Logic stays at UI layer.
public async Task<ActionResult> Login(LoginModel model, string returnUrl)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
bool result = _activeDirectoryService.ValidateCredentials(
model.Domain, model.UserName, model.Password);
if (result)
{
...
}
}
...
}

you can take quite a bit of a different approach.....( ignoring your repositories, but allowing for it to be injected )
In this system, the property is only readable, with an event system to handle the mutations, the event system also has rules system which controls what mutations are allowed. This means even if you have a property object you can't mutate it without going through its rules.
This code is more conceptual. The next logical step is to use a full actor model and something like (akka.net) and you may find your repository pattern just disappearing :)
public class Property
{
public string Name { get; private set; }
private IPropertyRules _rules;
private List<User> _occupants = new List<User>();
private IEventLog _eventLog;
public Property(IPropertyRules rules, IEventLog eventLog)
{
_rules = rules;
_eventLog = eventLog;
}
public ActionResult Do(IAction action, User user)
{
_eventLog.Add(action, user);
if (_rules.UserAllowedTo(action, user, this))
{
switch (action)
{
case Open o:
Open();
return new ActionResult(true, $"{user} opened {Name}");
case Enter e:
Enter(user);
return new ActionResult(true, $"{user} entered {Name}");
}
return new ActionResult(false, $"{Name} does not know how to {action} for {user}");
}
return new ActionResult(false, $"{user} is not allowed to {action} {Name}");
}
private void Enter(User user)
{
_occupants.Add(user);
}
private void Open()
{
IsOpen = true;
}
public bool IsOpen { get; set; }
}
public interface IEventLog
{
void Add(IAction action, User user);
}
public class Enter : IAction
{
}
public interface IPropertyRules
{
bool UserAllowedTo(IAction action, User user, Property property);
}
public class Open : IAction
{
}
public class ActionResult
{
public ActionResult(bool successful, string why)
{
Successful = successful;
WhatHappened = why;
}
public bool Successful { get; private set; }
public string WhatHappened { get; private set; }
}
public interface IAction
{
}
public class User
{
}

How do you inject an arbitrary/changing set of services into an object using Autofac?

Using Autofac, given multiple interfaces in constructor parameters which is not what I want to achieve, let's say I have;
public class SomeController : ApiController
{
private readonly IDomainService _domainService;
private readonly IService1 _service1;
private readonly IService2 _service2;
private readonly IService3 _service3;
public SomeController(IDomainService domainService,
Iservice1 service1,
IService2 service2,
IService2 service3, ...)
{
_domainService = domainService;
_service1 = service1;
_service2 = service2;
_service3 = service3;
...
}
}
Or, we may do one interface and has multiple properties, e.g.;
public interface IAllServices
{
IDomainService DomainService { get; set; }
IService1 Service1 { get; set; }
IService2 Service2 { get; set; }
IService3 Service3 { get; set; }
}
public class SomeController : ApiController
{
private readonly IAllServices _allServices;
public SomeController(IAllServices allServices)
{
_allServices = allServices;
var domainService1 = _allServices.DomainService;
var service1 = _allServices.Service1;
etc...
}
}
However, I would like to have a list of services, and this code works for me, i.e.;
public interface IMyApp
{
IEnumerable<dynamic> Services { get; set; }
}
public class SomeController : ApiController
{
private readonly IMyApp _myapp;
public SomeController(IMyApp myapp)
{
_myapp = myapp;
foreach (var item in _myapp.Services)
{
if (item is IService1) { // do something... }
if (item is IService2) { // do something... }
if (item is IWhatever) { // do whatever something... }
}
}
}
But, I don't have a better best practice how to create the module, here is my module;
public class MainModule : Autofac.Module
{
private readonly string[] _serviceNames;
private readonly IDomainService _domainService;
public MainModule(IDomainService domainService, params string[] serviceNames)
{
_serviceNames = serviceNames;
_domainService = domainService;
}
protected override void Load(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
List<dynamic> _services = new List<dynamic>();
_services.Add(_domainService);
foreach (var serviceName in _serviceNames)
{
switch (serviceName)
{
case "MyService1":
IService1 service1 = new Service1();
_modules.Add(service1);
break;
case "MyService2":
IService2 service2 = new Service2();
_modules.Add(service2);
break;
case "SomeWhateverService":
IWhatever whateverService = new WhateverService();
_modules.Add(whateverService);
break;
}
}
builder.RegisterType<MyApp>()
.As<IMyApp>()
.WithParameter(new TypedParameter(typeof(IEnumerable<dynamic>), _services));
}
}
So, this code works, but I would like to make my DomainService and all of the Services registered in the container as well. That is, I want to replace whatever inside the switch statement without new keyword.
IService1 service1 = new Service1();
_modules.Add(service1);
And I would like to register the domain service as well. So, inside my Bootstrapper is like this;
public static class Initializer
{
public static IContainer BuildContainer(
HttpConfiguration config, Assembly assembly, IDomainService domainService, params string[] services)
{
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterApiControllers(assembly);
builder.RegisterWebApiFilterProvider(config);
builder.RegisterModule(new MainModule(domainService, services));
var container = builder.Build();
config.DependencyResolver = new AutofacWebApiDependencyResolver(container);
return container;
}
}
And what happen is, I need to create the domain service in the startup, i.e.;
public class WebApiApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication
{
protected void Application_Start()
{
GlobalConfiguration.Configure(WebApiConfig.Register);
MyDomainService domainService = new MyDomainService();
var container =
Initializer.BuildContainer(
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration,
Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly(),
domainService,
"MyService1", "MyService2", "SomeWhateverService");
}
}
You can see that I have to create the domain service first, which is not using IoC;
MyDomainService domainService = new MyDomainService();
and add to the module.
The big question, how to do this in proper way using Autofac. My Bootstrapper is in another project and all of the interfaces are in other project as well.
Many thanks for the help. And sorry for the long question.
Solution:
After testing several model, it seems the best way is to use domain events model for this type of scenario instead of injecting the services into the domain.

The proper way of doing dependency injection is using Constructor Injection. Constructor Injection should always your preferred choice, and only under high exception, you should fall back to another method.
You proposed property injection as an alternative, but this causes Temporal Coupling which means that classes can be initialized while a required dependency is missing, causing null reference exceptions later on.
The method where you inject a collection containing all services where the constructor is responsible of getting the dependencies it needs, is a variation of the Service Locator pattern. This pattern is littered with problems and is considered to be an anti-pattern.
Grouping dependencies into a new class and injecting that is only useful in case that class encapsulates logic and hides the dependencies. This pattern is called Facade Service. Having one big service that exposes the dependencies for others to use can be considered a form of the Service Locator anti-pattern, especially when the number of services that this class exposes starts to grow. It will become the common go-to object for getting services. Once that happens, it exhibits the same downsides as the other form of Service Locator does.
Extracting dependencies into a different class while allowing the consumer to use those dependencies directly doesn't help in reducing complexity of the consumer. That consumer will keep the same amount of logic and the same number of dependencies.
The core problem here seems that your classes get too many dependencies. The great thing about constructor injection though is that it makes it very clear when classes have too many dependencies. Seeking other methods to get dependencies doesn't make the class less complex. Instead of trying other methods of injection, try the following:
Apply the Single Responsibility Principle. Classes should have one reason to change.
Try extracting logic with its dependencies out of the class into a Facade Service
Remove logic and dependencies that deals with cross-cutting concerns (such as logging and security checks) from the class and place them in infrastructure (such as decorators, interceptors or depending on your framework into handlers, middleware, message pipeline, etc).

After testing several model, it seems the best way is just use domain events pattern for this type of scenario instead of injecting the services into the domain.
I refer to Udi Dahan article on domain events:
http://udidahan.com/2009/06/14/domain-events-salvation/

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

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

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

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

IoC / Dependency Injection - How to handle contextual dependencies (using Structuremap)

After introducing messaging in my application it seems I've found a bit of a smell.
In my multi tenant application, the file system is abstracted and scoped for each tenant. So if a service needs to create files, then we inject an instance of IFileSystem which will be scoped to the tenants directory/container.
This is achieved by configuring structuremap to construct the IFileSystem implementation by getting of a contextual object that has the current users site.
Now we need to use the filesystem when there is no context and no current user (on a background thread). Here's a simple example:
public class SiteContext
{
public string SiteId { get { return "Site123"; } }
}
public class FileSystemSettings
{
public string BaseDirectory { get; set; }
}
public interface IFileSystem { }
public class DefaultFileSystem : IFileSystem
{
public DefaultFileSystem(FileSystemSettings settings)
{
}
}
public interface ISomeService { }
public class SomeService : ISomeService
{
public SomeService(IFileSystem fileSystem)
{
}
}
public class TestMessageHandler : IMessageHandler<TestMessage>
{
public TestMessageHandler(ISomeService someService)
{
// oO we don't have access to site context here :(
}
}
I suppose I could change my FileSystem implementation to expose the FileSystemSettings as a property so it can be set afterwards.
However, even doing this would still require me to construct my ISomeService object manually, which is a pain as some of my services have a number of dependencies = lots of calls to ObjectFactory.GetInstance...
Ideas?

You could use nested containers and configure the nested container to have a dummy implementation of your context.
The code would approximately be:
using (var container = ObjectFactory.Container.GetNestedContainer())
{
container.Configure(config => {
config.For<ISiteContext>().Use<DummyContext>();
});
return container.GetInstance<TestMessageHandler>();
}
This should set a custom (dummy) implementation of ISiteContext without overwriting the global container (ObjectFactory.Container). Of course, I can't give you an appropriate implementation of DummyContext without more information. But this should get you started.