views:

146

answers:

5

After reading more and more about IoC containers, I read this post about not having IoC.Resolve() etc in your code.

I'm really curious to know then, how can I remove the dependency on the container?

I'll want to write code like the following:

public void Action()
{
    using(IDataContext dc = IoC.Resolve<IDataContext>())
    {
        IUserRepository repo = IoC.Resolve<IUserRepository>();
        // Do stuff with repo...
    }
}

But how can I get rid of the IoC.Resolve calls? Maybe I need a better understanding of DI...

Thanks in advance.

A: 

have a second dependency injector to inject the first one, and have the first one inject the second one

;-)

Keith Nicholas
You may laugh, but I've seen people advocate this, apparantly in seriousness.
mschaef
+4  A: 

Generally speaking, most dependencies can be injected into your class at the time it is created. However, in this particular case, you need a component that must be created on demand at the time of use. In such cases, it is very difficult to completely remove dependency on an IoC container. My approach has always been to create a factory that is injected into the class at creation time, which in turn encapsulates all direct IoC usage. This allows your factories to be mocked for testing, rather than the IoC container itself...which tends to be a lot easier:

// In Presentation.csproj
class PresentationController
{
    public PresentationController(IDataContextFactory dataContextFactory, IRepositoryFactory repositoryFactory)
    {
        #region .NET 4 Contract
        Contract.Requires(dataContextFactory != null);
        Contract.Requires(repositoryFactory != null);
        #endregion

        _dataContextFactory = dataContextFactory;
        _repositoryFactory = repositoryFactory;
    }

    private readonly IDataContextFactory _dataContextFactory;
    private readonly IRepositoryFactory _repositoryFactory;

    public void Action()
    {
        using (IDataContext dc = _dataContextFactory.CreateInstance())
        {
            var repo = _repositoryFactory.CreateUserRepository();
            // do stuff with repo...
        }
    }
}

// In Factories.API.csproj
interface IDataContextFactory
{
    IDataContext CreateInstance();
}

interface IRepositoryFactory
{
    IUserRepository CreateUserRepository();
    IAddressRepository CreateAddressRepository();
    // etc.
}

// In Factories.Impl.csproj
class DataContextFactory: IDataContextFactory
{
    public IDataContext CreateInstance()
    {
        var context = IoC.Resolve<IDataContext>();
        // Do any common setup or initialization that may be required on 'context'
        return context;
    }
}

class RepositoryFactory: IRepositoryFactory
{
    public IUserRepository CreateUserRepository()
    {
        var repo = IoC.Resolve<IUserRepository>();
        // Do any common setup or initialization that may be required on 'repo'
        return repo;
    }

    public IAddressRepository CreateAddressRepository()
    {
        var repo = IoC.Resolve<IAddressRepository>();
        // Do any common setup or initialization that may be required on 'repo'
        return repo;
    }

    // etc.
}

The benefit of this approach is, while you can not completely eliminate the IoC dependency itself, you can encapsulate it in a single kind of object (a factory), decoupling the bulk of your code from the IoC container. This improves your codes agility in light of, say, switching from one IoC container to another (i.e. Windsor to Ninject).

It should be noted, an interesting consequence of this, is that your factories are usually injected into their dependents by the same IoC framework they use. If you are using Castle Windsor, for example, you would create configuration that tells the IoC container to inject the two factories into your business component when it is created. The business component itself may also have a factory...or, it may simply be injected by the same IoC framework into a higher-level component, etc. etc., ad inf.

jrista
Thanks for the answer. The only problem is that the IoC that I'm using should have a scope, relative to a `using` statement. Then if I Resolve say `IDataContext` it will resolve the *single instance* for that particular scope. I don't want my controllers etc to be aware of an IoC container, but is there really any way around this?
TheCloudlessSky
What I'm wondering is if a Controller should be able to call IoC.Resolve<IDataContext>? If not, who should be making this call?
TheCloudlessSky
Could you explain a little more about this scope? What IoC container are you using? Generally speaking, coupling any of your code to the container framework in any way is a negative kind of coupling...you should avoid that at all costs. In my experience, a scope (or context) is rarely, if ever, required for an IoC container to work. If it does work that way, I would find an alternative container, or find a way to supply that context to the factories that resolve your objects and keep your IoC framework decoupled as much as possible.
jrista
Well actually I'm trying to write my own *very simple* IoC container. I'm doing it mostly for my own learning. I'm using ASP.NET MVC and so regardless of what IoC container, who makes the call to Resolve<T>. I understand about using the Factory, but where does the Factory lie? Should it be the only thing in the application that has a reference to the container?
TheCloudlessSky
Yes, the factories should be the only things that reference your IoC container. As to where you put your factories, I guess that is up to you. It ultimately depends on who the primary consumers of those factories are. Some like to include factories in their API's, however I think that creates an undesirable coupling between the API, the Factory, and the implementations the factory creates. My preference is usually to locate the factories along side the consumers...which in your case, would be your controllers. Put them into their own projects, one with interfaces, the other with implementation
jrista
Just to clarify: Have 3 projects? 1 with IoC etc. 1 with domain stuff and factories and then 1 with the controllers etc (the actual MVC project)? Thanks!
TheCloudlessSky
I would actually have 4: one extra one to contain factory interfaces. The reason I would separate the interfaces (`IDataContextFactory`) from the implementation (`DataContextFactory`) is to maintain proper decoupling. You should bind to an interface, allowing the implementation of that interface to vary. In the case of production code, you would inject the concrete implementation. However, in the case of test code, for example, you would inject a mock version. Its best to keep our interfaces (or 'contracts') in separate assemblies from your implementation code.
jrista
I've updated the example to be more relevant to your situation.
jrista
Ok thanks, I understand now how to do it. Thanks!
TheCloudlessSky
A: 

I was on a project a while ago that hadn't settled on an IoC container. They managed the uncertainty by disallowing non-IoC specific features of their container and also by wrapping Resolve with their own class. This is also something I've seen advocated a few times in blog posts... remove the last dependency, the dependency on the dependency injection container.

This is a workable technique, but at some point you have to choose the tools you use and be willing to accept that you'll pay costs to switch to alternative tools. For me, IoC containers fall into the category of things you probably ought to embrace wholeheartedly, so I question this level of factoring. If you want to look into this further, I suggest the following link:

http://blog.objectmentor.com/articles/2010/01/17/dependency-injection-inversion

mschaef
A: 

One alternative is to re-write the method to accept Action<T> delegates. This removes the dependency from the method and allows you to unit test it with a mock:

public void Action(Action<IDataContext> getDataContext, Action<IUserRepository> getUserRepository)
{
    using(IDataContext dc = getDataContext())
    {
        IUserRepository repo = getUserRepository();
        // Do stuff with repo...
    }
}
Jamie Ide
A: 

I blogged about this very issue recently:

Krzysztof Koźmic
Thanks for the links. So, it again comes down to using a factory. And from what I read, in order to instantiate the factory, you still have to have a reference to the IoC container, correct?
TheCloudlessSky
No you don't need any kind of reference to the container to get the factory, that's the whole point.
Krzysztof Koźmic
Ok so the factory has the reference to the container then? Where does the factory live? I understand how the factory is created, I'm just not sure where to put it.
TheCloudlessSky
I notice in your blog post you talk about one call to Resolve. I'm trying to implement my own IoC container (for learning) and was wondering *how* this can be achieved?
TheCloudlessSky
You also state that you make one Resolve call for the "root" (in my case the MVC Controller), where would it go?
TheCloudlessSky
See the documentation, it should answer some of your questions:http://stw.castleproject.org/Windsor.Typed-Factory-Facility.ashxYou can also go and read the code - I'd argue that you will benefit more from it, than from writing your own simple container from scratch.
Krzysztof Koźmic