I'm seriously start thinking that usage of IoC container provokes to create overdesigned solutions (at least it provokes me to try to use various unnecessary features:).
It's the time to synchronize my "IoC" antipatterns list with community one's..
My short experience tell that it is absolutely enough to call Resolve method once per application at startup to resolve some infrastructure singletons and initiate with them "transient object's factory" that could produce new "smaller life time grain factories" . Even to make those factories thread safe (e.g. create one instance per thread) is so easy to achieve by adding 10 code lines into factory... Still those factories are much more simpler then "library's integration with IoC tool". Interception? Just create your own wrappers... Life time managers / dependency strategies/ parent containers? Call the Resolve only once at bootstrapper and you won't think about that.
Could you help me to understand why developers call Resolve several times on different application layers (by passing container or by passing delegate to container) and then have a lot of things to think about? I really worry that I miss something.
Some kind of IoC are anti-patterns or may be in some cases. For example the service locator antipattern. But if you are using constructor injection at the beginning of your application - and only there - then it should not lead to an anti-pattern.
Injecting a DI container interface in a class is a wrong use of constructor injection. If DI is not part of the business logic of your class it should not know or depend on DI container nor should it depend on IKitchen. It's only fine to inject your DI container in some kind of helper or service working in conjunction with your dependency injection container, because it's purpose is to work with or around DI container. The examples in the links you give are misuse of IoC. It does not mean that IoC in general is an anti-pattern.
I think the correct question would be "Can constructor injection be an anti-pattern?". So far I've never faced any situation or seen any example where it was so I would say "no", until I face such a situation.
When it was not clear to me how to use an IoC container, I decided to stop using it, because I thought was just an overcomplication over the simple dependency injection.
It is true though that even without IoC is possible to fall in the over-injection cases.
A while ago I read some posts from the author of ninject that opened my mind.
As you already know the injector should be used only inside the context root. However, in order to avoid over-injections, I decided to introduce an exception of the rule for injected factories.
In my framework, factories (and only factories) can use the injector container. Factories are binded in the container in the context root and therefore can be injected. Factories become valid dependencies and are used to create new objects inside other objects, using the injector container to facilitate dependencies injection.
Read This
Clearly something wrong. New library should not bring additional complex code.
I've found somebody who possibly could understand me :)
Constructor over-injection anti-pattern
Other antipattern in my eyes is pushing the initialization of container "deeper" then actual bootsrapper.
For example Unity and WCF recommendations
Bootstrapper in wcf app is the service constructor, then just put container initialization to constructor. I do not understand reasons to recommend to go for programming wcf sevice behaiviors and custome sevice host factory: if you want to have "IoC container free" bootstrapper - it is absurd, if you need to have "IoC container free" service contract implementation - just create second "IoC container free" service contract implementation.
Related
I have a situation where i am currently using constructor dependency injection for a small module that fits inside a larger web framework.
Its working fine but now there is a new class being introduced that requires 2 objects passed to it. But, 1 of the objects requires a lot of work to get set up - essentially it invovles around 4 method calls which create other objects in order to get it into a working state ready to be passed to my object.
My dilemna is that constructor injection is no use due to the work involved, but introducing a ioc container is way overboard, especially for this 1 off use case.
So, how should this be handled? Is there some sort of solution that sits in the middle of these two options?
You've effectively got four five choices:
Poor Man's DI (create objects manually and pass to constructors)
IoC container
Factory method
Abstract factory
Builder (thanks, Mark Seemann!)
I usually start off with an IoC container, but I do a lot of DI. (I've seen too many tightly-coupled codebases.)
If you don't want to introduce an IoC container, I'd lean towards Poor Man's DI.
If you're working in any object-oriented language (not just C#), I recommend reading the book Dependency Injection in .NET. It covers the patterns and anti-patterns in detail.
1 of the objects requires a lot of work to get set up - essentially it invovles around 4 method calls which create other objects in order to get it into a working state ready to be passed to my object.
OK, then create the object and pass the completely initialized object to the constructor, in which it needs to go.
Creating that object sounds like a job for a Builder or Factory.
My dilemna is that constructor injection is no use due to the work
involved,
I prefer Constructor Injection and see no reasons to avoid it.
Using modern IoC frameworks you can specify creation logic that involves "a lot of work to get set up" via factory/ factory method.
No matter how many steps are needed to build an instance of IMyService, you can simply use a constructor dependency to inject it.
Castle Windsor
container.AddFacility<FactorySupportFacility>()
.Register(
Component.For<IMyFactory>().ImplementedBy<MyFactory>(),
Component.For<IMyService>()
.UsingFactoryMethod(k => k.Resolve<IMyFactory>().Create())
);
Unity
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<IMyFactory, MyFactory>();
container.RegisterType<IMyService>(
new InjectionFactory(c => c.Resolve<IMyFactory>().Create()));
I read this article and saw many people commented that do not use Castle Windsor to implement IDependencyResolver in ASP.NET MVC3 and stick with a custom IControllerFactory. Basically my questions now are:
Do not use Castle Windsor to implement IDependencyResolver. Is this still true in ASP.NET MVC 4 ?
If 1 is the case. Can any other DI container (Unity, StructureMap) has the same problem as Castle Windsor? Can I use any alternative?
Thanks a lot
EDIT
Sounds to me that Castle Windsor should NOT be used to implement IDependencyResolver. I have decided to use some other DI container, such as StructureMap
There is no difference between MVC3 and MVC4 in regards to IDependencyResolver, other than the fact there is a separate resolver for WebAPI.
In my opinion, Mike Hadlow is a bit too caustic on this subject, and many other people have jumped on the bandwagon without truly considering why.
Yes, it's true that Castle Windsor has a specific object lifestyle (ie lifetime management object) called Pooled that often requires you to call Release on it. And when using this lifestyle, you should probably not use IDependencyResolver because it does not provide access to this Release method (although there are ways around that too).
However, I feel it's generally bad to use this lifestyle in a web application, and you should instead use the PerWebRequest lifestyle, which will automatically release objects at the end of the web request. If this is what you are using, then there is no problem with using IDependencyResolver with Castle Windsor.
Why do I think Hadlow is too caustic? Well, because he bases his entire argument on this:
"That’s right, no ‘Release’ method. You can provide a service from your IoC container, but there’s no way to clean it up. If I was going to use this in Suteki Shop, I would have a memory leak of epic proportions."
He then goes on to reference Krzysztof Koźmic's article regarding lifestyle management, but neglects to reference his followup article which I will do here:
http://kozmic.net/2010/08/27/must-i-release-everything-when-using-windsor/
Note what he says here:
"Since as I mentioned in my previous post, Windsor will track your component, it’s a common misconception held by users that in order to properly release all components they must call Release method on the container."
He goes on to talk about various other aspects as well, but in general, I don't think most people will be using Pooled or Transient objects that required disposal in a web application. And if you do, then you should know not to use IDependencyResolver then. Otherwise, you should have no problems.
I know I will probably get a lot of grief from people arguing otherwise, but I simply do not see this as the end of the world issue that people like Hadlow seem to think it is, since there are so many alternatives, and workarounds even when you do need to call Release.
Besides all this, using a lifestyle that requires calling Release means extra work for you, the developer. You now have to manage the object lifetimes and remember to dispose of objects, and failing to do so creates memory leaks. This is, essentially, nullifying the benefits of garbage collection in my opinion. I only ever use transient objects with things that do not need disposal, and I never use pooled objects.
By the way, I may be wrong, but I don't think any other container has this problem. This leads me to the conclusion that it's Windsor that is broken, rather than MVC, when every other container out there seems to not have an issue with this. Windsor likes to stubbornly hang on to its version of reality though, so YMMV.
The advice not to use IDependencyResolver is silly, because it can be used with Castle Windsor, even though the interface lacks a release method. The solution is simply to let the IDependencyResolver implementation cache each requested instance (in a cache bounded to the web request, using HttpContext.Items for instance). At the end of the web request all cached instances (usually just a few) can be released.
To be able to release all instances at the end of the web request, you should either register an Request_Ends event in the global.asax or register a HttpModule that does this.
You can call this a workaround, but not using the IDependencyResolver is not really an option, since it is too deeply integrated with MVC. Besides, other containers (such as Ninject and Simple Injector) use this same approach (using an HttpModule) to 'release' instances.
It's unfortunate though, that there isn't an official NuGet packages for omtegrating Windsor with MVC, since now you'll have to implement this yourself. All other frameworks do have such package btw. But again, it isn't that hard to implement this yourself.
Other IoC containers already show that it is possible to implement release as an implementation detail and you don't need Release as part of the IDependencyResolver contract. The MVC designers actually did the right thing by removing such method from the API.
While I agree implementing IDependencyResolver is possible and not terribly difficult.. and yes, depending on the lifestyles at play, explicitly Release()'ing may not matter... and yes, there are ways to force a Release() by caching the instance somewhere as well as other subtle tricks - I think this is alot to leave to interpretation and can be problematic and hard to track down. Understanding when Windsor is going to track an instance isn't always immediately obvious (i.e. if the component has decommission concerns vs. not, lifestyle, etc.). One of the core value-add's of IoC is to centralize the responsibility of object creation and instance management. To properly do that and have separation of concerns - you need to have an architecture that you can trust will serve you well in call scenarios and that IMO means having a iron clad answer for Release()'ing instance of all flavors. My advice is to always implement a design that will allow Release to be called - especially on roots (i.e. a Controller).
The final argument against IDependencyResolver is you have to register a number of MVC system components if you integrate at this level. That's too intimate of a dance between my app and the framework beneath it for my taste. IControllerFactory gives a much more targeted integration point, you don't have to register MVC system components and you get a Release() hook. So, unless you want to override MVC System components, I see very little reason to implement IDepedencyResolver over IControllerFactory. I see the opposite argument in fact. I personally wised up to this on this thread over here which shows both approaches.
Hope this helps
I am using the Ninject WCF extension project to do dependency injection on my web service. If I add an attribute to my web service (such as a an IServiceBehavior), how can I inject dependencies into that attribute when it is created at runtime?
Attributes are created by the .NET Runtime. Therefore there is no real dependency injection for them. You should try to avoid having attributes that require dependencies whenever possible. You have the following options:
Service behaviors can be added without attributes. But this requires that you extend the current WCF Extension with some way to define that you want to add a service behavior for some instances in a similar way as it is currently possible for MVC Filters. This is done here: https://github.com/ninject/ninject.extensions.wcf/blob/master/src/Ninject.Extensions.Wcf/ServiceHost/NinjectServiceHost.cs
You can implement an IInstance provider which searches your attributes and injects them. See https://github.com/ninject/ninject.extensions.wcf/blob/master/src/Ninject.Extensions.Wcf/NinjectInstanceProvider.cs
I'd try to go with the first option.
I disagree that attributes should not have dependencies in them. Often times validation attributes will have unavoidable dependencies. Attributes are an excellent example of DRY when used correctly.
The approach #wllmsaccnt took is essentially the KernelContainer approach which was removed in 2.2 - but worse. Now the attribute is coupled to the WCF app.
IMO this is precisely the reason I disagree with the removal of the KernelContainer. I'd definitely prefer injection over service locator, but I really don't see why service locator is discouraged when you are working within systems that you can't change or control.
It's surely better than writing additional custom code - for every application - that is most likely less maintainable and less testable than ServiceLocator.
DISCLAIMER: I know there is debate between DI and service locator patterns. I have a question that is intended to avoid the debate. This question is for the service locator fans, who happen to think like Fowler "DI...is hard to understand...on the whole I prefer to avoid it unless I need it." For the purposes of my question, I must avoid DI (reasons intentionally not given), so I'm not trying to spark a debate unrelated to my question.
QUESTION: The only issue I might see with keeping my IOC container in a singleton (remember my disclaimer above), is with the use of child containers. Presumably the child containers would not themselves be singletons. At first I thought that poses a real problem. But as I thought about it, I began to think that is precisely the behavior I want (the child containers are not singletons, and can be Disposed() at will).
Then my thoughts went further into a philosophical realm. Because I'm a service locator fan, I'm wondering just how necessary the notion of a child container is in the first place. In a small set of cases where I've seen the usefulness, it has either been to satisfy DI (which I'm mostly avoiding anyway), or the issue was solvable without recourse to the IOC container. My thoughts were partly inspired by the IServiceLocator interface which doesn't even bother to list a "GetChildContainer" method.
So my question is just that: if you are a service locator fan, have you found that child containers are usually moot? Otherwise, when have they been essential?
extra credit: If there are other philosophical issues with service locator in a singleton (aside from those posed by DI advocates), what are they?
IMHO:
Child containers have nothing to with service locators, i.e. they're orthogonal. Using a container as a service locator is just that, a way to use it, and it has nothing to do with the container supporting child containers or not.
Child containers usage depend largely on container design. For example, while Windsor supports them, they're seldomly used. Autofac OTOH uses them heavily to manage scope / component lifecycles. And it's an entirely optional feature of any container / service locator implementation, that's why IServiceLocator doesn't mention it. IServiceLocator's job is to provide the lowest common denominator in a service locator.
Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
I'm trying to decide whether or not it makes sense to go through the extra effort to encapsulate my IoC container. Experience tells me that I should put a layer of encapsulation between my apps and any third-party component. I just don't know if this is bordering on overkill.
I can think of situations where I might want to switch containers. For instance, my current container ceases to be maintained, or a different container is proven to be more light-weight/performant and better fits my needs. If this happens, then I'll potentially have a lot of re-wiring to do.
To be clear, I'm considering encapsulation of the registration and resolution of types. I think it's a no-brainer to encapsulate resolution - I'd hope it's common practice to have a helper/util class delegating to the container.
EDIT:
The assumption is that I prefer to wire-up my types programmatically for type-safety, compile-time checking and refactorability. It's this code and its dependency on the container that I'm looking to protect myself from.
I've also been using an IoC container for several other projects that share a lot of the same relationships, but the container is a pain to work with so I want change. But, a change means I lose the reusability of the registration code. Hence, why I'm contemplating encapsulation. It's not a huge burden, but one that I'd, nevertheless, like to mitigate.
I'm looking to:
Minimize the impact of change in containers / versions of containers
Provide some level of type-registration consistency across projects that may use different containers
Provide interface methods that make sense to me (RegisterSingleton<T,T> rather than RegisterType<T,T>( SomeLifetimeProvider ) - using Unity as an example).
Augment the container as conditions/scalability requirements change e.g. adding better caching, logging, etc during resolution/registration.
Provide my own model for registering type mappings.
Say I want to create a bunch of RegistrationHandler objects in an assembly/package and so I can easily segregate registration responsibilities across multiple classes and automatically pickup these handlers without changing code anywhere else.
I realize this is a bit subjective, so pros/cons might be helpful
Thanks!
Do it later, and only if you actually have the need to change IOC containers.
Pick an IOC container that is non-invasive. That is, one where the objects being connected to each other don't have any dependencies on the IOC container. In this case, there's nothing to encapsulate.
If you have to pick an IOC container that requires that you have dependencies on the container, choose one with the simplest dependencies/API you can. If you need to replace this IOC container (and you probably won't), implement adapters that bridge the new API to the old one.
In other words, let the first IOC container be the one that defines the interfaces for any future container so that you don't have to invent your own, and you can delay any of this sort of work until you absolutely need it.
EDIT:
I don't see a way of guaranteeing type-safety short of either:
Designing a relatively complex implementation of the Builder pattern along with visitor implementations that would write IOC configuration files, or something equivalent.
Implementing a type-safe IOC configuration DSL. (My choice if I had multiple apps that required swappable IOC containers.)
Yeah go for it. It's not a whole lot of extra effort and like you say, it gives you better isolation from third party components.
It also means that you can easily switch out the IoC container if you find something that's better. I recently did this with swapping out the Spring.net IoC container for structuremap.
The ASP.NET MVC Contrib project on codeplex is a pretty good place to start. This is what I based my implementation off.
It's best practice to do something only if there's an actual need for it, and never code something that you guess to be required sometimes in the future (that's the so-called YAGNI-principle). If your architecture is ok, you can easily change the container, if it actually should become necessary...
If you think you need this kind of flexibility, you may look at the Common Service Locator project at CodePlex. It does exactly what you look for: providing a common facade for various IoC containers.
HTH!
Rather than encapsulating the IOC container itself, I prefer to isolate the locus of interaction with the IOC container. For example, in ASP.Net MVC, I generally limit the exposure to the container to the controller factory and the global.aspx.cs file, where it's usually setup.
In my mind, having a lot of code that knows about the IOC container is an antipattern that increases complexity. I've seen a fair amount of code in which objects feel free to ask the IOC container for their dependencies, and then they've basically reduced the IOC container to a high-maintenance Service Locator.
Since IOC containers can resolve dependencies to an arbitrary degree of depth, it's pretty easy to make the controller factory the component that's responsible for involving the inversion of control containers. The constructor for each controller essentially specifies the services/repositories/gateways it needs.
For any of my apps, swapping the IOC container would essentially be a matter of rewriting the code the configures the container (specifies the bindings, etc.) and hooks up the controller factory. For apps exposed as services, the same basic idea should be reasonably manageable, though depending on the constraints of your runtime, you might have to use setter injection rather than constructor injection.