Related
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'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time.
The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered.
If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules.
Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify...
Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern?
Update: I came across Spring.NET. I've heard of it before, but never really looked into it. It sounds like it has a lot of great features that would be very useful for what I'm trying to do. Does anyone have any experience with Spring.NET?
TIA,
Jeremy
I strongly recommend looking at some of the existing Aspect Oriented Programming (AOP) frameworks for .NET since they will likely accomplish what you're trying to achieve in a more generalized and maintainable fashion. Most of them are open source, so where they don't meet your needs you may be able to extend and contribute to the project(s).
More details: http://www.sharpcrafters.com/aop.net
Spring.NET, Unity Framework and StructureMap are probably your best bet. What I have done in the past is used MVC and created a custom controller factory to generate my controllers. However using dependency injection became difficult with frameworks like NinJect because of it's lack of an XML configuration (Ninject uses a fluent API). The reason it's difficult ofcourse is that you are not sure at runtime what modules you will need dependency injection for.
The three IOC containers above all have some form of XML configuration which can be modified outside of your compilation and therefore help to make your application more modular, so there would be (hopefully) no need for static initialization. The major plus being that you don't have to worry as much about thread safety.
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.
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.
I use dependency injection through parameters and constructors extensively. I understand the principle to this degree and am happy with it. On my large projects, I end up with too many dependencies being injected (anything hitting double figures feels to big - I like the term 'macaroni code').
As such, I have been considering IOC containers. I have read a few articles on them and so far I have failed to see the benefit. I can see how it assists in sending groups of related objects or in getting the same type over and over again. I'm not sure how they would help me in my projects where I may have over a hundred classes implementing the same interface, and where I use all of them in varying orders.
So, can anybody point me at some good articles that not only describe the concepts of IOC containers (preferably without hyping one in particular), but also show in detail how they benefit me in this type of project and how they fit into the scope of a large architecture?
I would hope to see some non-language specific stuff but my preferred language if necessary is C#.
Inversion of Control is primarily about dependency management and providing testable code. From a classic approach, if a class has a dependency, the natural tendency is to give the class that has the dependency direct control over managing its dependencies. This usually means the class that has the dependency will 'new' up its dependencies within a constructor or on demand in its methods.
Inversion of Control is just that...it inverts what creates dependencies, externalizing that process and injecting them into the class that has the dependency. Usually, the entity that creates the dependencies is what we call an IoC container, which is responsible for not only creating and injecting dependencies, but also managing their lifetimes, determining their lifestyle (more on this in a sec), and also offering a variety of other capabilities. (This is based on Castle MicroKernel/Windsor, which is my IoC container of choice...its solidly written, very functional, and extensible. Other IoC containers exist that are simpler if you have simpler needs, like Ninject, Microsoft Unity, and Spring.NET.)
Consider that you have an internal application that can be used either in a local context or a remote context. Depending on some detectable factors, your application may need to load up "local" implementations of your services, and in other cases it may need to load up "remote" implementations of your services. If you follow the classic approach, and create your dependencies directly within the class that has those dependencies, then that class will be forced to break two very important rules about software development: Separation of Concerns and Single Responsibility. You cross boundaries of concern because your class is now concerned about both its intrinsic purpose, as well as the concern of determining which dependencies it should create and how. The class is also now responsible for many things, rather than a single thing, and has many reasons to change: its intrinsic purpose changes, the creation process for its dependencies changes, the way it finds remote dependencies changes, what dependencies its dependencies may need, etc.
By inverting your dependency management, you can improve your system architecture and maintain SoC and SR (or, possibly, achieve it when you were previously unable to due to dependencies.) Since an external entity, the IoC container, now controls how your dependencies are created and injected, you can also gain additional capabilities. The container can manage the life cycles of your dependencies, creating and destroying them in more flexible ways that can improve efficiency. You also gain the ability to manage the life styles of your objects. If you have a type of dependency that is created, used, and returned on a very frequent basis, but which have little or no state (say, factories), you can give them a pooled lifestyle, which will tell the container to automatically create an object pool for that particular dependency type. Many lifestyles exist, and a container like Castle Windsor will usually give you the ability to create your own.
The better IoC containers, like Castle Windsor, also provide a lot of extendability. By default, Windsor allows you to create instances of local types. Its possible to create Facilities that extend Windsor's type creation capabilities to dynamically create web service proxies and WCF service hosts on the fly, at runtime, eliminating the need to create them manually or statically with tools like svcutil (this is something I did myself just recently.) Many facilities exist to bring IoC support existing frameworks, like NHibernate, ActiveRecord, etc.
Finally, IoC enforces a style of coding that ensures unit testable code. One of the key factors in making code unit testable is externalizing dependency management. Without the ability to provide alternative (mocked, stubbed, etc.) dependencies, testing a single "unit" of code in isolation is a very difficult task, leaving integration testing the only alternative style of automated testing. Since IoC requires that your classes accept dependencies via injection (by constructor, property, or method), each class is usually, if not always, reduced to a single responsibility of properly separated concern, and fully mockable dependencies.
IoC = better architecture, greater cohesion, improved separation of concerns, classes that are easier to reduce to a single responsibility, easily configurable and interchangeable dependencies (often without requiring a recompilation of your code), flexible dependency life styles and life time management, and unit testable code. IoC is kind of a lifestyle...a philosophy, an approach to solving common problems and meeting critical best practices like SoC and SR.
Even (or rather, particularly) with hundreds of different implementations of a single interface, IoC has a lot to offer. It might take a while to get your head fully wrapped around it, but once you fully understand what IoC is and what it can do for you, you'll never want to do things any other way (except perhaps embedded systems development...)
If you have over a hundred of classes implementing a common interface, an IoC won't help very much, you need a factory.
That way, you may do the following:
public interface IMyInterface{
//...
}
public class Factory{
public static IMyInterface GetObject(string param){
// param is a parameter that will help the Factory decide what object to return
// (that is only an example, there may not be any parameter at all)
}
}
//...
// You do not depend on a particular implementation here
IMyInterface obj = Factory.GetObject("some param");
Inside the factory, you may use an IoC Container to retrieve the objects if you like, but you'll have to register each one of the classes that implement the given interface and associate them to some keys (and use those keys as parameters in GetObject() method).
An IoC is particularly useful when you have to retrieve objects that implement different interfaces:
IMyInteface myObject = Container.GetObject<IMyInterface>();
IMyOtherInterface myOtherObject Container.GetObject<IMyOtherInterface>();
ISomeOtherInterface someOtherObject = Container.GetObject<ISomeOtherInterface>();
See? Only one object to get several different type objects and no keys (the intefaces themselves are the keys). If you need an object to get several different object, but all implementing the same interface, an IoC won't help you very much.
In the past few weeks, I've taken the plunge from dependency-injection only to full-on inversion of control with Castle, so I understand where your question is coming from.
Some reasons why I wouldn't want to use an IOC container:
It's a small project that isn't going to grow that much. If there's a 1:1 relationship between constructors and calls to those constructors, using an IOC container isn't going to reduce the amount of code I have to write. You're not violating "don't repeat yourself" until you're finding yourself copying and pasting the exact same "var myObject = new MyClass(someInjectedDependency)" for a second time.
I may have to adapt existing code to facilitate being loaded into IOC containers. This probably isn't necessary until you get into some of the cooler Aspect-oriented programming features, but if you've forgotten to make a method virtual, sealed off that method's class, and it doesn't implement an interface, and you're uncomfortable making those changes because of existing dependencies, then making the switch isn't quite as appealing.
It adds an additional external dependency to my project -- and to my team. I can convince the rest of my team that structuring their code to allow DI is swell, but I'm currently the only one that knows how to work with Castle. On smaller, less complicated projects, this isn't going to be an issue. For the larger projects (that, ironically, would reap the most benefit from IOC containers), if I can't evangelize using an IOC container well enough, going maverick on my team isn't going to help anybody.
Some of the reasons why I wouldn't want to go back to plain DI:
I can add or take away logging to any number of my classes, without adding any sort of trace or logging statement. Having the ability for my classes to become interwoven with additional functionality without changing those classes, is extremely powerful. For example:
Logging: http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2008/07/31/Logging--the-AOP-way.aspx
Transactions: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/architecture/introducingcastle.aspx (skip down to the Transaction section)
Castle, at least, is so helpful when wiring up classes to dependencies, that it would be painful to go back.
For example, missing a dependency with Castle:
"Can't create component 'MyClass' as
it has dependencies to be satisfied.
Service is waiting for the following
dependencies:
Services:
- IMyService which was not registered."
Missing a dependency without Castle:
Object reference is not set to an
instance of an object
Dead Last: The ability to swap injected services at runtime, by editing an Xml File. My perception is that this is the most tauted feature, but I see it as merely icing on the cake. I'd rather wire up all my services in code, but I'm sure I'll run into a headache in the future where my mind will be changed on this.
I will admit that -- being a newbie to IOC and Castle -- I'm probably only scratching the surface, but so far, I genuinely like what I see. I feel like the last few projects I've built with it are genuinely capable of reacting to the unpredictable changes that arise from day to day at my company, a feeling I've never quite had before.
Try these:
http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa973811.aspx
I have no links but can provide you with an example:
You have a web controller that needs to call a service which has a data access layer.
Now, I take it in your code you are constructing these objects your self at compile time. You are using a decent design pattern, but if you ever need to change the implementation of say the dao, you have to go into you code and remove the code that sets this dependency up, recompile / test/ deploy. But if you were to use a IOC container you would just change the class in the configuration and restart the application.
Jeremy Frey misses one of the biggest reasons for using an IOC container: it makes your code easier to mock and test.
Encouraging the use of interfaces has lots of other nice benefits: better layering, easier to dynamically generate proxies for things like declarative transactions, aspect-oriented programming and remoting.
If you think IOC is only good for replacing calls to "new", you don't get it.
IoC containers usually do the dependency injections which in some projects are not a big deal , but some of the frameworks that provide IoC containers offer other services that make it worth to use them.
Castle for example has a complete list of services besides an IoC container.Dynamic proxies ,Transaction management and NHibernate facilities are some of them.
Then I think you should consider IoC contianers as a part of an application framework.
Here's why I use an IoC container:
1.Writing unit tests will be easier .Actually you write different configurations to do different things
2.Adding different plugins for different scenarios(for different customers for example)
3.Intercepting classes to add different aspects to our code.
4.Since we are using NHibernate ,Transaction management and NHibernate facilites of Castle are very helpful in developing and maintaining our code .
It's like every technical aspects of our application is handled using an application framework and we have time to think about what customers really want.