Using IoC with internal objects

Question

I am currently writing an open source SDK for a program that I use and I'm using an IoC container internally(NInject) to wire up all my internal dependencies.

I have some objects that are marked as internal so that I don't crowd the public API as they are only used internally and shouldn't been seen by the user, stuff like factories and other objects. The problem that I'm having is that NInject can't create internal objects which means that I have to mark all my internal objects public which crowds up the public API.

My question is: Is there someway to get around this problem or am I doing it all wrong?

PS. I have thought about using InternalsVisiableTo attribute but I feel like that is a bit of a smell.

Answer 1

I guess you don't even need that. IoC is for public stuff. Go straight for internals.

But - that's just my intuition...

Answer 2

Create a secondary, internal API which is different from the external API. You may need to do the split manually...

Answer 3

You can

• modify Ninject
• pick a different container

Answer 4

Quick look at the other answers: it doesn't seem like you are doing something so different that there is something fundamentally wrong with Ninject that you would need to modify it or replace it. In many cases, you can't "go straight for [the] internals" because they rely upon unresolved dependency injection; hence the usage of Ninject in the first place. Also it sounds like you already do have an internal set of interfaces which is why the question was posed.

Thoughts: one problem with using Ninject directly in your SDK or library is that then your users will have to use Ninject in their code. This probably isn't an issue for you because it is your IoC choice so you were going to use it anyway. What if they want to use another IoC container, then now they effectively have two running duplicating efforts. Worse yet what if they want to use Ninject v2 and you've used v1.5 then that really complicates the situation.

Best case: if you can refactor your classes such that they get everything they need through Dependency Injection then this is the cleanest because the library code doesn't need any IoC container. The app can wire up the dependencies and it just flows. This isn't always possible though, as sometimes the library classes need to create instances which have dependencies that you can't resolve through injection.

Suggestion: The CommonServiceLocator (and the Ninject adapter for it) were specifically designed for this situation (libraries with dependencies). You code against the CommonServiceLocator and then the application specifies which DI/IoC actually backs the interface.

It is a bit of a pain in that now you have to have Ninject and the CommonServiceLocator in your app, but the CommonServiceLocator is quite lightweight. Your SDK/library code only uses the CommonServiceLocator which is fairly clean.

Answer 5

I'm going to vote for the InternalsVisibleTo solution. Totally not a smell, really. The point of the attribute is to enable the sort of behavior you are wanting, so rather than jumping through all sorts of elaborate hoops to make things work without it, just use the functionality provided by the framework for solving this particular problem.

I would also suggest, if you want to hide your choice of container from the user, using ILMerge to combine the Ninject assemblies with your SDK assembly, and apply the /internalize argument to change the visibility of the Ninject assemblies to internal, so the Ninject namespaces don't leak out of your library (sorry, couldn't find a link to the ILMerge docs online, but there is a doc file in the download). There is also this nice blog post about integrating ILMerge into your build process.