Previously I asked this question and on a answer I got this comment:
This works, however injecting the container to a part, as far as I know, is not a "normal" use-case of MEF.
In my web app I have a few repositories that, of course, retrieve entities from the DB. To make them as loosely coupled as possible I'm making them return interfaces (eg IUser, IBill, IBlaBlaBla...) and the repository project only references the library project (that contains the interfaces). I use MEF composition capabilities to tie it all up...
Since the repository must have a concrete object to fill with info it got from the DB and the only the Container is aware of which concrete class maps to a specific interface I think that the repository MUST have reference to the container so it can call the "Resolve()", get a new instance and do his job, but that apparently is a mistake.
Can anyone tell me why and what approach would be better?
PS: I don't know if it's relevant but I'm using DDD...
I think the flaw in your design that lead to this problem is the use of interfaces to hide entities behind. Since entities are your core concept in your domain, there should be no use in hiding them behind an abstraction. Let's put it differently: do you ever have a different implementation of IUser?
In other words, ditch the IUser, IBill, etc. interface and let your repositories and business commands depend directly on your aggregate entities.
Related
I am a newcomer to C# / .Net / Prism / WPF / DevExpress and started to work on a big project in my company. As I am starting a bit late in the project, a lot of code was already produced and I stumble upon code like this very often:
public class AboutWindowViewModel : BindableBase
{
public AboutWindowViewModel(IUnityContainer container)
{
...
What I find "special" here is the dependence of the view model in the container. In the codebase I am currently looking at, it seems to be the "pattern". Every class gets a dependence in the IUnityContainer and then the dependencies are resolved manually with e.g.
container.ResolveEx<...>(...);
I am used to work with DI frameworks in other languages, so that example was just a non-sense to me because it goes against the definition of a DI framework and the problems it is meant to solve. For example, I tried to make up some code to test one of those view models and it turned out to be a nightmare.
Now, I addressed that concern to the developpers of my company and they answered me the following:
Prism recommendation is to resolve services using containers as they are needed.
Therefore, they resolve them all the time with the IUnityContainer.ResolveEx method.
My question is: is that really the recommended way to build up software with Prism??? If not, do you know where I can find documentation that clearly addresses that point with examples?
is that really the recommended way to build up software with Prism???
Not at all, in it's an anti-pattern.
Prism recommendation is to resolve services using containers as they are needed.
Not really just Prism, but more generally, the recommendation is to let the container resolve the dependencies. Of course, this can be done by calling Resolve manually, but in doing that one defeats all the benefits expected from dependency injection.
Rather, you want to list the dependencies as constructor parameters and let the container fill them. Your code does not need to depend on the container, except for the very entry-point ("resolution root"). The application should only ever contain a single Resolve statement that resolves the first instance.
Here's where Prism comes into play: in your PrismApplication.RegisterTypes and IModule.RegisterTypes, you configure your container. You tell it which type should implement which interface. Later on, when view models are needed, Prism (the ViewModelLocator to be precise) uses the container to resolve the view models, thereby resolving all the dependencies. There's no reason to make any class depend on the container, in fact, Prism doesn't register anything for IContainerRegistry in the first place.
Keep in mind that the container can not only inject singleton services, but also transient instances or factories. And if you need parametrized factories, you can always manually create and register complex factories.
On a side-note, I, personally, would be hesitant to work for a client with a code-base like this, as it's an obvious proof that their developers have no idea what they're doing.
I have read many pages regarding repository pattern,tons of them are online and each of them starts with we should use it because it makes the application testable and also separation matters,but i also see many opinions against this pattern,or also they say its depends on the application which approach to take,all in all the thing is implementation of the logic must be kept away from controller,can anyone tell me how can i do it if generic repository is not the first option?im new in entity framework
Jeffrey Palermo pioneered the onion architecture, which I have found a good approach.
http://www.headspring.com/jeffrey/onion-architecture-part-4-after-four-years/
However his statement "Inner layers define interfaces. Outer layers implement interfaces" seems to contradict IoC, if my understanding is correct, which states that Consumer define interface and providers implement it, i.e. the control lies with the consumer not the provider.
This principle makes sense to me, since, imagine you are writing a UI, this principle means you can get on with creating your UI without knowing anything about the services you are going to call since you are in charge of defining the interface that exposes all the functionality your will need.
So to that end Jeffreys statement seems a contradiction and confuses me about where to put contract(interface definitions), because it seems to imply that:
Domain Layer
MyEntity
IMyService
Service
MyEntityService : IMyService
Since there is no layer beneath Domain, where do I put IMyEntity. Also it means I cannot create a Presentation project until Domain exists and has defined IMyService.
As I side note, where do I place IMyEntityRepository and MyEntityRepository ? Since service relies on IMyEntityRepository and MyEntityRepository relies on IMyEntity
So, where to begin? :-)
Let’s start with the real role of an IOC. According to Wikipedia,
Inversion Of Control is a programming technique in which object
coupling is bound at run time by an assembler object and is typically
not known at compile time.
In your case, your UI will manipulate services interfaces without knowing the service implementation that will be bound at run time. It’s not up to the consumer to define those service interfaces; they will be defined in the application core of your Onion architecture, but we’ll see that later.
"Inner layers define interfaces. Outer layers implement interfaces", that’s how the Onion Architecture is designed, but do not forget that the outermost layer is the IOC! It’s up to the IOC to bind interfaces with the right implementations at run time!
You’re right saying that your UI won’t work without having at least one implementation available for the interfaces you will manipulate. But in this case, if for any reason you need to build your UI first, consider using a mocking framework!
Your last question is about where you need to place your IMyEntityRepository and MyEntityRepository classes. Well, that’s the easy part ;-) IMyEntityRepository definitely needs to be placed within your Application core. All your entities, service interfaces, repository interfaces and whatever interfaces need to be at the same place. MyEntityRepository implementation should be placed somewhere in your infrastructure layer as his role will be mainly to deal with getting data out of the DB.
Hope that helps!
I have worked with Jeffrey for many years, and I would say that IoC is integral to making Onion Architecture possible. Interfaces for external dependencies are defined in projects with few (if any) dependencies (in other words, projects at the "center" of the onion). Classes that implement those interfaces that depend on external dependencies are located in projects at the edge / on the surface of the onion. IoC containers, then, are needed to "hook up" the class implementations on the edge of the onion to interfaces at the core of the onion at run-time.
We've implemented Onion on my project and it's conceptually pretty simple.
Create a project that contains only interfaces and POCO's, we'll call this Contract for now
Create one or more projects that contains the implementations of your interfaces and all your 3rd party things like NHibernate mappings, we'll call this Implementation(s)
Add a direct reference to Contract from projects that need to use this functionality but don't add a reference to Implementation from these projects
In your composite root (application entry point) projects do two things (1) as part of the build copy the latest version of implementation to a configured location (we use AppSettings for the configuration but there are a lot of options here) (2) have your container scan the configured location for your Implementation Dll(s)
This approach allows you to only rely on Contract and the idea is that you can switch Implementation so if you want to move to Entity Framework or something else in the future you only have to reimplement Implementation using that framework.
We also copy the NHibernate DLLs to the configured scanning location and this allows us to make the architecture defensive so that it is difficult to not follow the it because NHibernate is only available where it should be used.
The interfaces in the onion architecture are the ones that the layer depends on (i.e. consumes), whose implementation indeed is provided by the outer layer.
More specifically, the architecture itself does not say you have to abstract the business logic behind interfaces (which you should probably do anyway, in respect of the dependency inversion principle, but that's another story). What is says is that the dependencies of the layer should be modeled as interfaces so implementations can be provided by the outer layer.
The best example is infrastructure code, and particularly data access. Your business logic needs to load and store data, so it defines an interface that it'll consume. The outer layer will provide an implementation using NHibernate or EF or whatever.
Actually, the low-level layers (from the DIP; i.e. the data access and other commodities) are on the outermost layers of the onion, while the high-level layers (i.e. the business logic) are closer to the center.
See also http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2012/08/13/the-clean-architecture.html which replaces the domain, business logic and more business logic terms with entities, use cases and interface adapters which IMO are easier to reason about. The farther you go from the center, the most specific you are to what the user sees and use; the closer to the center the more generic; at the center are those things that are transverse to your enterprise, then the use cases which are specific to your app more don't dictate how they'll be used or in which environment (which DB, which UI, etc.), then you'll make adapters between your use-cases and your technical framework (ASP.NET MVC, WCF, WPF –in a non-web scenario–, EF, NHibernate, etc.)
(Note: My question has very similar concerns as the person who asked this question three months ago, but it was never answered.)
I recently started working with MVC3 + Entity Framework and I keep reading that the best practice is to use the repository pattern to centralize access to the DAL. This is also accompanied with explanations that you want to keep the DAL separate from the domain and especially the view layer. But in the examples I've seen the repository is (or appears to be) simply returning DAL entities, i.e. in my case the repository would return EF entities.
So my question is, what good is the repository if it only returns DAL entities? Doesn't this add a layer of complexity that doesn't eliminate the problem of passing DAL entities around between layers? If the repository pattern creates a "single point of entry into the DAL", how is that different from the context object? If the repository provides a mechanism to retrieve and persist DAL objects, how is that different from the context object?
Also, I read in at least one place that the Unit of Work pattern centralizes repository access in order to manage the data context object(s), but I don't grok why this is important either.
I'm 98.8% sure I'm missing something here, but from my readings I didn't see it. Of course I may just not be reading the right sources... :\
I think the term "repository" is commonly thought of in the way the "repository pattern" is described by the book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture by Martin Fowler.
A Repository mediates between the domain and data mapping layers,
acting like an in-memory domain object collection. Client objects
construct query specifications declaratively and submit them to
Repository for satisfaction. Objects can be added to and removed from
the Repository, as they can from a simple collection of objects, and
the mapping code encapsulated by the Repository will carry out the
appropriate operations behind the scenes.
On the surface, Entity Framework accomplishes all of this, and can be used as a simple form of a repository. However, there can be more to a repository than simply a data layer abstraction.
According to the book Domain Driven Design by Eric Evans, a repository has these advantages:
They present clients with a simple model for obtaining persistence objects and managing their life cycle
They decouple application and domain design from persistence technology, multiple database strategies, or even multiple data sources
They communicate design decisions about object access
They allow easy substitution of a dummy implementation, for unit testing (typically using an in-memory collection).
The first point roughly equates to the paragraph above, and it's easy to see that Entity Framework itself easily accomplishes it.
Some would argue that EF accomplishes the second point as well. But commonly EF is used simply to turn each database table into an EF entity, and pass it through to UI. It may be abstracting the mechanism of data access, but it's hardly abstracting away the relational data structure behind the scenes.
In simpler applications that mostly data oriented, this might not seem to be an important point. But as the applications' domain rules / business logic become more complex, you may want to be more object oriented. It's not uncommon that the relational structure of the data contains idiosyncrasies that aren't important to the business domain, but are side-effects of the data storage. In such cases, it's not enough to abstract the persistence mechanism but also the nature of the data structure itself. EF alone generally won't help you do that, but a repository layer will.
As for the third advantage, EF will do nothing (from a DDD perspective) to help. Typically DDD uses the repository not just to abstract the mechanism of data persistence, but also to provide constraints around how certain data can be accessed:
We also need no query access for persistent objects that are more
convenient to find by traversal. For example, the address of a person
could be requested from the Person object. And most important, any
object internal to an AGGREGATE is prohibited from access except by
traversal from the root.
In other words, you would not have an 'AddressRepository' just because you have an Address table in your database. If your design chooses to manage how the Address objects are accessed in this way, the PersonRepository is where you would define and enforce the design choice.
Also, a DDD repository would typically be where certain business concepts relating to sets of domain data are encapsulated. An OrderRepository may have a method called OutstandingOrdersForAccount which returns a specific subset of Orders. Or a Customer repository may contain a PreferredCustomerByPostalCode method.
Entity Framework's DataContext classes don't lend themselves well to such functionality without the added repository abstraction layer. They do work well for what DDD calls Specifications, which can be simple boolean expressions sent in to a simple method that will evaluate the data against the expression and return a match.
As for the fourth advantage, while I'm sure there are certain strategies that might let one substitute for the datacontext, wrapping it in a repository makes it dead simple.
Regarding 'Unit of Work', here's what the DDD book has to say:
Leave transaction control to the client. Although the REPOSITORY will insert into and delete from the database, it will ordinarily not
commit anything. It is tempting to commit after saving, for example,
but the client presumably has the context to correctly initiate and
commit units of work. Transaction management will be simpler if the
REPOSITORY keeps its hands off.
Entity Framework's DbContext basically resembles a Repository (and a Unit of Work as well). You don't necessarily have to abstract it away in simple scenarios.
The main advantage of the repository is that your domain can be ignorant and independent of the persistence mechanism. In a layer based architecture, the dependencies point from the UI layer down through the domain (or usually called business logic layer) to the data access layer. This means the UI depends on the BLL, which itself depends on the DAL.
In a more modern architecture (as propagated by domain-driven design and other object-oriented approaches) the domain should have no outward-pointing dependencies. This means the UI, the persistence mechanism and everything else should depend on the domain, and not the other way around.
A repository will then be represented through its interface inside the domain but have its concrete implementation outside the domain, in the persistence module. This way the domain depends only on the abstract interface, not the concrete implementation.
That basically is object-orientation versus procedural programming on an architectural level.
See also the Ports and Adapters a.k.a. Hexagonal Architecture.
Another advantage of the repository is that you can create similar access mechanisms to various data sources. Not only to databases but to cloud-based stores, external APIs, third-party applications, etc.
You're right,in those simple cases the repository is just another name for a DAO and it brings only one value: the fact that you can switch EF to another data access technique. Today you're using MSSQL, tomorrow you'll want a cloud storage. OR using a micro orm instead of EF or switching from MSSQL to MySql.
In all those cases it's good that you use a repository, as the rest of the app won't care about what storage you're using now.
There's also the limited case where you get information from multiple sources (db + file system), a repo will act as the facade, but it's still a another name for a DAO.
A 'real' repository is valid only when you're dealing with domain/business objects, for data centric apps which won't change storage, the ORM alone is enough.
It would be useful in situations where you have multiple data sources, and want to access them using a consistent coding strategy.
For example, you may have multiple EF data models, and some data accessed using traditional ADO.NET with stored procs, and some data accessed using a 3rd party API, and some accessed from an Access database living on a Windows NT4 server sitting under a blanket of dust in your broom closet.
You may not want your business or front-end layers to care about where the data is coming from, so you build a generic repository pattern to access "data", rather than to access "Entity Framework data".
In this scenario, your actual repository implementations will be different from each other, but the code that calls them wouldn't know the difference.
Given your scenario, I would simply opt for a set of interfaces that represent what data structures (your Domain Models) need to be returned from your data layer. Your implementation can then be a mixture of EF, Raw ADO.Net or any other type of Data Store/Provider. The key strategy here is that the implementation is abstracted away from the immediate consumer - your Domain layer. This is useful when you want to unit test your domain objects and, in less common situations - change your data provider / database platform altogether.
You should, if you havent already, consider using an IOC container as they make loose coupling of your solution very easy by way of Dependency Injection. There are many available, personally i prefer Ninject.
The domain layer should encapsulate all of your business logic - the rules and requirements of the problem domain, and can be consumed directly by your MVC3 web application. In certain situations it makes sense to introduce a services layer that sits above the domain layer, but this is not always necessary, and can be overkill for straightforward web applications.
Another thing to consider is that even when you know that you will be working with a single data store it still might make sense to create a repository abstraction. The reason is that there might be a function that your application needs that your ORM du jour either does badly (performance), not at all, or you just don't know how to make the ORM bend to your needs.
If you are wrapping your ORM behind a well thought out repository interface, you can easily switch between different technologies as you see fit. It's not uncommon in my repositories to see some methods use EF for their work and others to use something like PetaPoco, or (gasp) ADO.net code. The repository abstraction enables you to use exactly the right tool for the job at hand without leaking these complexities into the client code.
I think there is a big misunderstanding of what many articles call "repository." And that's why there are doubts about what real value those abstractions bring.
In my opinion the repository in it's pure form is IEnumerable, while you and many articles are talking about "data access service."
I've blogged about it here.
Seems like everyone is moving towards IoC containers. I've tried to "grok" it for a while, and as much as I don't want to be the one driver to go the wrong way on the highway, it still doesn't pass the test of common sense to me. Let me explain, and please correct/enlighten me if my arguments are flawed:
My understanding: IoC containers are supposed to make your life easier when combining different components. This is done through either a) constructor injection, b) setter injection and c) interface injection. These are then "wired up" programmatically or in a file that's read by the container. Components then get summoned by name and then cast manually whenever needed.
What I don't get:
EDIT: (Better phrasing)
Why use an opaque container that's not idiomatic to the language, when you can "wire up" the application in (imho) a much clearer way if the components were properly designed (using IoC patterns, loose-coupling)? How does this "managed code" gain non-trivial functionality? (I've heard some mentions to life-cycle management, but I don't necessarily understand how this is any better/faster than do-it-yourself.)
ORIGINAL:
Why go to all the lengths of storing the components in a container, "wiring them up" in ways that aren't idiomatic to the language, using things equivalent to "goto labels" when you call up components by name, and then losing many of the safety benefits of a statically-typed language by manual casting, when you'd get the equivalent functionality by not doing it, and instead using all the cool features of abstraction given by modern OO languages, e.g. programming to an interface? I mean, the parts that actually need to use the component at hand have to know they are using it in any case, and here you'd be doing the "wiring" using the most natural, idiomatic way - programming!
There are certainly people who think that DI Containers add no benefit, and the question is valid. If you look at it purely from an object composition angle, the benefit of a container may seem negligible. Any third party can connect loosely coupled components.
However, once you move beyond toy scenarios you should realize that the third party that connects collaborators must take on more that the simple responsibility of composition. There may also be decommissioning concerns to prevent resource leaks. As the composer is the only party that knows whether a given instance was shared or private, it must also take on the role of doing lifetime management.
When you start combining various instance scopes, using a combination of shared and private services, and perhaps even scoping some services to a particular context (such as a web request), things become complex. It's certainly possible to write all that code with poor man's DI, but it doesn't add any business value - it's pure infrastructure.
Such infrastructure code constitutes a Generic Subdomain, so it's very natural to create a reusable library to address such concerns. That's exactly what a DI Container is.
BTW, most containers I know don't use names to wire themselves - they use Auto-wiring, which combines the static information from Constructor Injection with the container's configuration of mappings from interfaces to concrete classes. In short, containers natively understand those patterns.
A DI Container is not required for DI - it's just damned helpful.
A more detailed treatment can be found in the article When to use a DI Container.
I'm sure there's a lot to be said on the subject, and hopefully I'll edit this answer to add more later (and hopefully more people will add more answers and insights), but just a couple quick points to your post...
Using an IoC container is a subset of inversion of control, not the whole thing. You can use inversion of control as a design construct without relying on an IoC container framework. At its simplest, inversion of control can be stated in this context as "supply, don't instantiate." As long as your objects aren't internally depending on implementations of other objects, and are instead requiring that instantiated implementations be supplied to them, then you're using inversion of control. Even if you're not using an IoC container framework.
To your point on programming to an interface... I'm not sure what your experience with IoC containers has been (my personal favorite is StructureMap), but you definitely program to an interface with IoC. The whole idea, at least in how I've used it, is that you separate your interfaces (your types) from your implementations (your injected classes). The code which relies on the interfaces is programmed only to those, and the implementations of those interfaces are injected when needed.
For example, you can have an IFooRepository which returns from a data store instances of type Foo. All of your code which needs those instances gets them from a supplied object of type IFooRepository. Elsewhere, you create an implementation of FooRepository and configure your IoC to supply that anywhere an IFooRepository is needed. This implementation can get them from a database, from an XML file, from an external service, etc. Doesn't matter where. That control has been inverted. Your code which uses objects of type Foo doesn't care where they come from.
The obvious benefit is that you can swap out that implementation any time you want. You can replace it with a test version, change versions based on environment, etc. But keep in mind that you also don't need to have such a 1-to-1 ratio of interfaces to implementations at any given time.
For example, I once used a code generating tool at a previous job which spit out tons and tons of DAL code into a single class. Breaking it apart would have been a pain, but what wasn't much of a pain was to configure it to spit it all out in specific method/property names. So I wrote a bunch of interfaces for my repositories and generated this one class which implemented all of them. For that generated class, it was ugly. But the rest of my application didn't care because it saw each interface as its own type. The IoC container just supplied that same class for each one.
We were able to get up and running quickly with this and nobody was waiting on the DAL development. While we continued to work in the domain code which used the interfaces, a junior dev was tasked with creating better implementations. Those implementations were later swapped in, all was well.
As I mentioned earlier, this can all be accomplished without an IoC container framework. It's the pattern itself that's important, really.
First of all what is IOC? It means that responsibility of creating the dependent object is taken away from the main object and delegated to third party framework. I always use spring as my IOC framework and it bring tons of benefit to the table.
Promotes coding to interface and decoupling - The key benefit is that IOC promotes and makes decoupling very easy. You can always inject an interface in your main object and then use the interface methods to perform tasks. The main object does not need to know which dependent object is assigned to the interface. When you want to use a different class as dependency all you need is to swap the old class with a new one in the config file without a single line of code change. Now you can argue that this can be done in the code using various interface design patterns. But IOC framework makes its walk in a park. So even as a newbie you become expert in levering various interface design patterns like bridge, factory etc.
Clean code - As most of object creation and object life-cycle operations are delegated to IOC container you saved from the writing broiler point repetitive code. So you have a cleaner, smaller and more understandable code.
Unit testing - IOC makes unit testing easy. Since you are left with decoupled code you can easily test the decoupled code in isolation. Also you can easily inject dependencies in your test cases and see how different component interacts.
Property Configurators - Almost all the applications have some properties file where they store application specific static properties. Now to access those properties developers need to write wrappers which will read and parse the properties file and store the properties in format that application can access. Now all the IOC frameworks provide a way of injecting static properties/values in specific class. So this again becomes walk in the park.
These are some of the points I can think right away I am sure there are more.