Develop Reference

What good is Unity DI in MVC?

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

What is the use of spring.net?

We are developing an application using Silverlight and WCF Services. Is using Spring.Net is beneficial for us?

>> "Is using Spring.Net is beneficial for us?"
I think the spirit of your question is really geared more towards questioning the benefit of using an IoC/DI framework versus manually managing dependencies as needed. My response will focus more on the why and why not of IoC/DI and not so much on which specific framework to use.
As Martin Fowler mentioned at a recent conference, DI allows you to separate configuration from usage. For me, thinking about DI in the light of configuration and usage as separate concerns is a great way to start asking the right questions. Is there a need for your application to have multiple configurations for your dependencies? Does your app need the ability to modify behavior by configuration? Keep in mind, this means that dependencies are resolved at runtime and typically require an XML configuration file which is nice because changes can be made without requiring a recompile of the assembly. Personally, I'm not a fan of XML-based configuration of dependencies as they end up being consumed as "magic strings". So there's the danger of introducing runtime errors if you end up misspelling a class name, etc. But if you need the ability to configure on-the-fly, this is probably the best solution today.
On the other hand, there are DI frameworks like Ninject and StructureMap that allow fluent in-code dependency definitions. You lose the ability to change definitions on-the-fly, but you get the added benefit of compile time validations, which I prefer. If all you want from a DI framework is to resolve dependencies then you could eliminate XML-based frameworks from the equation.
From a Silverlight perspective, DI can be used in various ways. The most obvious is to define the relationship of Views to ViewModels. Going deeper, however, you can define validation, and RIA context dependencies, etc. Having all of the dependencies defined in a configuration class keeps the code free from needing to know how to get/create instances and instead focus on usage. Don't forget that the container can manage the lifetime of each object instance based on your config. So if you need to share an instance of a type (e.g. Singleton, ManagedThread, etc.), this is supported by declaring the lifetime scope of each type registered with the container.
I just realized at this point I'm ranting and I apologize. Hope this helps!

Personally i'd recommend using either Castle or Unity as i've had great success with both and found them both, while different, excellent IOC frameworks.
Besides the IOC component they also provide other nifty tools (AOP in Castle, Interface interception in Unity, for example) which you will no doubt find a use for in the future, and having an IOC framework in place from the start is ALWAYS a hell of a lot easier than trying to retrofit it.
It's incredibly easy to setup and configure, although personally i'm not a huge fan of the XML config way of doing things as some of those config files can turn into a total nightmare. A lot of people will tell you that it's only worth doing if you intend to swap components in and out, but why not just do that anyway IN CASE you decide you need to do that later. it's better to have it and not use it, than not have it and need it. If you're worried about perf hit i've seen on many blog posts around the web people comparing the various IOC frameworks for their speed and unless you're creating brain surgery robots or the US Missile defence platform it won't be an issue.

A DI Framework might be of use if you want to change big chunks of your application without having to rewrite your constructors. For example, you might want to use a comet streaming service that you will expose through an interface, and later decide that you'd rather use a dedicated messenging system such as MQ or RendezVous. You will then write an adapter to Mq that respects the common facade and just change the spring config to use the Mq implementation rather than the Comet one.
But for the love of tony the pony, don't use Spring.Net to create your MVVM/MVP/MVC bindings for each and every view or you'll enter a world of pain.
DI is a great tool when used with parcimony, please don't end-up with 243 spring configuration files, for your devs' sanity.

Using an IOC container such as Spring.Net is beneficial as it will enable you to unit test parts of your UI by swapping in mocked or special test implementations of the applications interfaces. In the long run, this should make your application more maintainable for future developers.

I think if you do more in the code rather than using the markup to do bindings etc. and have a BAL/DAL DI can help there because it can inject the correct business component reference (as one example). DI has many other practical advantages, but then you have to do more in code and less in markup.

Real world solutions using Dependency Injection

I was reading about DI thoroughly, and it seems interesting. So far, I'm totally living without it.
All the examples i saw are related to JNDI and how DI helps you being more flexible.
What is real life applications/problems that you solved with DI that will be hard to solve in other ways?
UPDATE
All the answers till now are educating, but to rephrase the question, I'm looking for examples in your programming life, that made you say "this problem will be best solved with a DI framework".

Just the other day, I decided to read up on dependency injection. Until then, I only knew the word. Honestly, my reaction to Martin Fowler's article was, "That's it?"
I have to agree with James Shore:
"Dependency Injection" is a 25-dollar term for a 5-cent concept.
That doesn't mean at all that it's a bad concept. But seriously, when an instance A needs to work with another instance B, it comes down to these choices:
let A find B:
That means B must be global. Evil.
let A create B:
Fine, if only A needs B. As soon as C also needs B, replace A by C in this list. Note that a test case would be a C, so if you do want to test, this choice is gone as well.
give B to A:
That's dependency injection.
Am I missing something? (Note that I'm from the Python world, so maybe there are language specific points I'm not seeing.)

Yesterday I found a mobile on the bus. The person who lost it had no clue about the person possessing her mobile. I called her dad and told him I have the mobile of his daughter. So I injected the dependency from me into him. Typically a case of the hollywood principle "Don't call us (because you can't!), we call you". Later he came and picked up his daughters phone.
I'd call that a real world problem which I solved by dependency injection, isn't it?
In my opinion, DI is not THE way to solve problems, for which we would not have another solution. Factories can be another way to solve such problems.
So there is no real answer for your question, because DI is just one way besides others. It is just a pretty hip, although very elegant way.
I really enjoyed DI when I had this DAOs, which needed an SQLMapper. I just had to inject the different mappers into the fatherclass once and the rest was done by configuration. Saved me a lot of time and LOCs, but I still can't name this a problem for which there is no other solution.

I use dependency injection for testing all the time. It's also extremely helpful when you have a bunch of large systems that you do not want to directly tie together (extremely loose coupling).
If you're using Java, I would recommend Google Guice, since it rocks so much. For C++, I recommend Qt IOC. For .NET, the Castle Project provides a nice IOC system. There is also a Spring implementation basically everywhere, but that's boring.

DI allows you to create applications that can be configured and reconfigured without touching the codebase itself. Not just urls or settings though; generic objects can be written in code, and then "customized" or configured via XML files to achieve the specific result desired for the given case.
For example, I can create a RegexDetective class where the actual regex it looks for is provided in a setter, and then in my Spring DI XML file, define one actual regex expression for RegexDetective.setRegex() for a deployment of SleuthApp going to London. Then a few days later I can go back and update the regex in the XML file for another deployment of SleuthApp shipping out to Siberia.
DI also allows one to define specific implementations of interfaces in a similar fashion, outside of the codebase in XML, to modify behavior of an application without actually touching the code, such as setting the AngryDetective or ArcticDetective implementation of the Detective interface, in the DI XML file.

We run a multimedia service for different countries. We run the same code for everyone but sometimes, business rules are different from one country to another. In this case, we inject different Spring MVC Interceptor for one client or for another.
Then, in the deploy phase, a script "chooses" which DI file is needed, based on the last letters of the files (fr for France, ch for Switzerland etc...)
application-context.xml-fr
application-context.xml-ch
etc...
That's the only good use I see in DI. I'm not a fan of DI though.

I've used Spring's IoC (DI) container for the last three web apps I've developed. I don't think its suited to one particular type of problem, rather it's a different way of solving a problem. It's as you've said, a more flexible approach to large systems. My personal favourite features of DI are that you can prepare better unit tests because your classes are highly decoupled. Also important for me is code reuse. Since I use the container in many apps, I can use the same components and know that their dependencies will be fed in externally.

In large multi-module applications using DI, a module only depends on the interfaces on the collaborator of its classes, which cuts compile-time dependency graphs.
In the context of frameworks (calling "your" functional code, as opposed to functional code calling a library), this is required. Your code can have compiling dependencies to the framework, but we all know that the framework (out of your hands) could not have compile dependencies to your code ;-)

I use DI primarily for ease of testing. Additionally it fosters the model of stubbing out your service calls to provide isolation and the ability to implement independent of service development.

Is it a good practice to create wrapper over 3rd party components like MS enterprise Library or Log4net?

This is more like a good practise question. I want to offer different generic libraries like Logging, caching etc. There are lots of third party libraries like MS enterprise library, log4Net, NCache etc for these.
I wanted to know if its a good practise to use these directly or create wrapper over each service and Use a DI to inject that service in the code.
regards

This is subjective, but also depends on the library.
For instance, log4net or NHibernate have strictly interface based API's. There is no need to wrap them. There are other libraries which will make your classes hard to test if you don't have any interfaces in between. There it might be advisable to write a clean interface.
It is sometimes good advise to let only a small part of the code access API's like for instance NHibernate or a GUI library. (Note: This is not wrapping, this is building abstraction layers.) On the other side, it does not make sense to reduce access to log4net calls, this will be used in the whole application.
log4net is probably a good example where wrapping is just overkill. Some people suffer of "wrappitis", which is an anti-pattern (sometimes referred to as "wrapping wool in cotton") and just produces more work. Log4net has such a simple API and is highly customizable, they made it better then your wrapper most probably will be.
You will find out that wrapping a library will not allow you to just exchange it with another product. Upgrading to newer versions will also not be easier, rather you need to update your wrapper for nothing.

If you want to be able to swap implementations of those concepts, creating a wrapper is the way to go.
For logging there already is something like that available Common.Logging.

Using wrapping interfaces does indeed make unit testing much easier, but what's equally important, it makes it possible to use mocks.
As an example, the PRISM framework for Silverlight and WPF defines an ILoggerFacade interface with a simple method named Log. Using this concept, here's how I define a mocked logger (using Moq) in my unit tests:
var loggerMock = new Mock<ILoggerFacade>(MockBehavior.Loose);
loggerMock.Setup(lg => lg.Log(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<Category>(), It.IsAny<Priority>()))
.Callback((string s, Category c, Priority p) => Debug.Write(string.Format("**** {0}", s)));
Later you can pass loggerMock.Object to the tested object via constructor or property, or configure a dependency injector that uses it.

It sounds like you are thinking of wrapping the logging implementation and then sharing with different teams. Based on that here are some pros and cons.
Advantages of Wrapping
Can abstract away interfaces and
dependencies from implementation.
This provides some measure of protection against breaking changes
in the implementation library.
Can
make standards enforcement easier and
align different project's
implementations.
Disadvantages of Wrapping
Additional development work.
Potential additional documentation
work (how to use new library).
More
likely to have bugs in the wrapping
code than mature library. (Deploying your bug fixes can be a big headache!)
Developers
need to learn new library (even if
very simple).
Can sometimes be
difficult to wrap an entire library
to avoid leaking implementation
interfaces. These types of wrapper
classes usually offer no value other
than obfuscation. e.g. MyDbCommand
class wraps some other DbCommand
class.
I've wrapped part of Enterprise Library before and I didn't think it added much value. I think you would be better off:
Documenting the best practices and usage
Providing a reference implementation
Verifying compliance (code reviews
etc.)

This is more of a subjective question but IMO it's a good thing to wrap any application/library specific usage into a service model design that has well thought out interfaces so you can easily use DI and later if you ever need to switch from say EntLib Data Application Block to NHibernate you don't need to re-architect you're whole application.

I generally create a "helper" or "service" class that can be called statically to wrapper common functionality of these libraries.
I don't know that there is a tremendous amount of risk in directly referencing/calling these, since they are definitely mature projects (at least EntLib and Log4Net), but having a wrapper isolates you from the confusion of version change, etc. and gives you more options in the future, at a fairly low cost.

I think it's better to use a wrapper, personally, simply because these are things you don't want to be running when your unit tests run (assuming you're unit testing also).

Yes if being able to replace the implementation is a requirement now or in a reasonable future.
No otherwise.
Defining the interface that your application will use for all logging/enterprising/... purposes is the core work here. Writing the wrapper is merely a way to make the compiler enforce use of this interface rather than the actual implementation.

What is the overhead cost associated with IoC containers like StructureMap?

After attending a recent Alt.NET group on IoC, I got to thinking about the tools available and how they might work. StructureMap in particular uses both attributes and bootstrapper concepts to map requests for IThing to ConcreteThing. Attributes automatically throw up flags for me that either reflection or IL injection is going on. Does anyone know exactly how this works (for StructureMap or other IoC tools) and what the associated overhead might be either at run-time or compile-time?

I can't say much for other IoC toolkits but I use Spring.Net and have found that there is a one off initial performance penalty at startup. Once the container has been configured the application runs unaffected.

I use Windsor from the CastleProject and have found it immensely useful in reducing dependencies. I haven't noticed a performance issue yet but one thing I do find is that the configuration can get a bit cumbersome. To help in this regard I'm starting to look at Binsor, which is a DSL for Windsor written in boo.
Another thing to be aware of is that when navigating code you wont be able to go to the code that will be executing at runtime.

They major problem is that code becomes hard to understand. It might become pure magical if one overuse IoC. Another problem is performance. In most cases performance lost is not noticeable. But when you start creating most of your objects via IoC container, it can suddenly drop below ocean level.

I built a very lightweight and basic IOC, here:
http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/shay/archive/2008/09/30/building-custom-object-mapper.aspx
It's not an alternative to the libraries You mentioned but if all that You need is to resolve a type by giving its interface it might be a perfect solution.
I don't handle instantiation types (singleton, transient, thread, pool...), all object will be instantiated as singletons, you call it like:
IRepository _repository = ObjectFactory.BuildFactory<IRepository>();
Shay