I'd like to know what the best practices are for Eclipse 4 dependency injection.
After reading about this subject on the internet, I came up with the following strategy.
requirements
Share the data model of the application (e.g. company, employee, customer, ...) so that framework objects (view parts, handlers, listeners, ...) can access it with as little coupling as possible.
proposed strategy
I've used the lifeCycleURI plugin property to register a handler which is triggered at application startup. Such handler creates an "empty" top-level data model container object and place it into the EclipseContext. It is also discarded when application stops.
All Eclipse framework classes (view parts, handlers) use the classic DI to get such data model object injected.
Button listeners created with the class constructor can't have the data model object injected in them. So I thought they could be created with ContextInjectionFactory.make() to have injection performed. This would couple the class which creates the listener with CIF, but the great advantage is that injection works out of the box.
This is the best solution I've found yet to leverage E4 DI with as little coupling as possible. The weak spot is in my opinion this coupling with CIF. My question would be whether any strategy exist to remove even this coupling, or alternate solutions for the same requirements.
You can create a service class in your project, let's say ModelService.
Add #creatable and #singleton annotations to that class :
#creatable
#singleton
class ModelService{
}
And let DI do its job using following syntax in your parts/handlers/etc ..
#Inject ModelService modelService;
Then you can implement methods in your service like 'createBaseModel()', updateModel() and so on.
This creates a low coupling solution : you can also implement ModelService in a separate plugin and define it as a OSGi service.
for that solution, you can read this Lars Vogel article.
Related
I'm in the process of teaching myself the MVVM pattern by dividing the pattern into its core facets and learning those facets one by one.
My question is related to dependency injection. What is it, and why/when should I use it? I've looked at Jason Dolinger's excellent MVVM intro video and I see he uses Unity. This might be strange to ask but how would I implement dependency injection WITHOUT using Unity? I basically want to understand the concept of dependency injection and how to use it without having to implement other frameworks/tools (for now).
Thanks.
I think it's good that you want to understand DI without using a framework, the concept is not terribly difficult to wrap your head around.
Let's say you want to use some form of transportation.
interface ITransportation
{
Transport();
}
An initial implementation of a method that uses a form of transportation might look like this:
public void Move()
{
ITransportation car = new Car();
car.Transport();
}
The problem with that method is that it is now dependent on a Car class. We should pass our transportation object in for added flexibility. This is inversion of control and is closely related to DI.
public void Move(ITransportation tr)
{
tr.Transport();
}
As you can see, we don't need to know anything about a specific DI framework. You might also want to check out the ninject DI by hand tutorial.
Just to extend #Andy's answer
Dependency Injection is one of the forms of the Dependency Inversion Principle
To achieve the decoupling of dependencies (as typically found in layered architecture),
DI is commonly used for instantiation scenarios such as basic new() and patterns like Factory method. In addition to being able to inject a new dependency instance every time (e.g. like factory), containers can also be set up to inject named instances, singleton instances, etc - i.e. IoC containers usually also take on the responsibility of managing the lifespans of objects as well.
One potential 'mindset shift' is that dependencies now potentially become publicly visible on concrete classes, since DI typically injects via constructors or public Get / Set properties. This may seem strange if you are used to using OO encapsulation, where dependencies of a class are seen as implementation and should be hidden from the 'outside' i.e. class method signatures.
However, by implementing Interface / Concrete class separation (as you should, not only for decoupling but also for testing / mocking purposes), the injection constructors / property injection methods will not be on the interface, so encapsulation is again in place.
Re : "Doing DI by hand" without Unity etc
What you would need to do is to code your own IoC container, which then is responsible for 'building up' instances of classes - during each 'build up', you would scan the class for dependencies (which are configured in the container, e.g. by config, by attributes, or simply just by convention, e.g. all public settable properties, or any class parameters on a constructor will be assumed to be dependencies). You would then create (if necessary) and inject this 'dependency' instance onto the object (e.g. by using reflection). And then recursively, all dependencies of these dependencies need to be built up etc. You would then also need to provide lifespan management for each of the objects, e.g. Singletons etc.
Recently I was looking at some source code provided by community leaders in their open source implementations. One these projects made use of IOC. Here is sample hypothetical code:
public class Class1
{
private ISomeInterface _someObject;
public Class1(ISomeInterface someObject)
{
_someObject = someObject;
}
// some more code and then
var someOtherObject = new SomeOtherObject();
}
My question is not about what the IOCs are for and how to use them in technical terms but rather what are the guidelines regarding object creation. All that effort and then this line using "new" operator. I don't quite understand. Which object should be created by IOC and for which ones it is permissible to be created via the new operator?
As a general rule of thumb, if something is providing a service which may want to be replaced either for testing or to use a different implementation (e.g. different authentication services) then inject the dependency. If it's something like a collection, or a simple data object which isn't providing behaviour which you'd ever want to vary, then it's fine to instantiate it within the class.
Usually you use IoC because:
A dependency that can change in the future
To code against interfaces, not concrete types
To enable mocking these dependencies in Unit Testing scenarios
You could avoid using IoC in the case where you don't control the dependency, for example an StringBuilder is always going to be an StringBuilder and have a defined behavior, and you usually don't really need to mock that; while you might want to mock an HttpRequestBase, because it's an external dependency on having an internet connection, for example, which is a problem during unit tests (longer execution times, and it's something out of your control).
The same happens for database access repositories and so on.
I start loving OSGi services more and more and want to realize a lot more of my components as services. Now I'm looking for best-practice, especially for UI components.
For Listener-relations I use the whiteboard-pattern, which IMHO opinion is the best approach. However if I want more than just notifications, I can think of three possible solutions.
Imagine the following scenario:
interface IDatabaseService {
EntityManager getEntityManager();
}
[1] Whiteboard Pattern - with self setting service
I would create a new service interface:
interface IDatabaseServiceConsumer {
setDatabaseService(IDatabaseService service);
}
and create a declarative IDatabaseService component with a bindConsumer method like this
protected void bindConsumer(IDatabaseServiceConsumer consumer) {
consumer.setDatabaseService(this);
}
protected void unbindConsumer(IDatabaseServiceConsumer consumer) {
consumer.setDatabaseService(null);
}
This approach assumes that there's only one IDatabaseService.
[Update] Usage would look like this:
class MyUIClass ... {
private IDatabaseService dbService;
Consumer c = new IDatabaseServiceConsumer() {
setDatabaseService(IDatabaseService service) {
dbService = service;
}
}
Activator.registerService(IDatabaseServiceConsumer.class,c,null);
...
}
[2] Make my class a service
Image a class like
public class DatabaseEntryViewer extends TableViewer
Now, I just add bind/unbind methods for my IDatabaseService and add a component.xml and add my DatabaseEntryViewer. This approach assumes, that there is a non-argument constructor and I create the UI components via a OSGi-Service-Factory.
[3] Classic way: ServiceTracker
The classic way to register a static ServiceTracker in my Activator and access it. The class which uses the tracker must handle the dynamic.
Currently I'm favoring the first one, as this approach doesn't complicated object creation and saves the Activator from endless, static ServiceTrackers.
I have to agree with #Neil Bartlett, your option 1 is backward. You are in effect using an Observer/Observable pattern.
Number 2 is not going to work, since the way UI objects lifecycles are managed in RCP won't allow you to do what you want. The widget will have to be created as part of the initialization of some sort of view container (ViewPart, Dialog, ...). This view part is typically configured and managed via the Workbench/plugin mechanism. You should work with this, not against it.
Number 3 would be a simple option, not necessarily the best, but simple.
If you use Spring DM, then you can easily accomplish number 2. It provides a means to inject your service beans into your UI Views, Pages, etc. You use a spring factory to create your views (as defined in your plugin.xml), which is configured via a Spring configuration, which is capable of injecting your services into the bean.
You may also be able to combine the technique used by the SpringExtensionFactory class along with DI to accomplish the same thing, without introducing another piece of technology. I haven't tried it myself so I cannot comment on the difficulty, although it is what I would try to do to bridge the gap between RCP and OSGi if I wasn't already using Spring DM.
I think my question is a long shot.
Lets say I have an attribute:
public sealed class MyCustomAttribute: ActionFilterAttribute
Used on a class method
[MyCustomAttribute]
public virtual ActionResult Options(FormCollection collection)
Now, I need to add a contructor's parameter
public MyCustomAttribute(IMyDependentObject dependentObject)
{
(...)
}
(You propably notice that it's some Asp.NET MCV code)
I would like to use DI to create this attribute. Asp.NET MVC code automatically create it and I don't know how/where I could write code to use Castle istead.
Any ideas?
As far a I konw castle does not support injection of existing objects, which makes it impossible to inject attributes as their construction is not under your control. Other IoC containers such as Ninject support injection of existing objects. They inject properties of your attribut filter. See http://github.com/ninject/ninject.web.mvc for an extension that exactly does what you need.
What you can do if you want to stay on castle is to inject your own ControllerActionInvoker derived from ControllerActionInvoker (AsyncControllerActionInvoker in case of async controller) into all controllers. In your own invoker you override GetFilters. Additionally to the Filters returned by the base you add FilterInfos that are created by castle.
The decision which filters infos are created and added can be achieved with various strategies e.g.:
Add an own custom attribute that contains the information e.g. name of a binding
A configuration file/database
May you consider switching to MVC3 this makes all a bit easier. As you can register your own FilterProvider which makes all much easier. In this FilterProvider you have to decide which filter info you want to add. See again the two strategies above. See http://bradwilson.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/service-location-pt4-filters.html for information about MVC3 and filters.
Suppose that the ApplicationSettings class is a general repository of settings that apply to my application such as TimeoutPeriod, DefaultUnitOfMeasure, HistoryWindowSize, etc... And let's say MyClass makes use of one of those settings - DefaultUnitOfMeasure.
My reading of proper use of Inversion of Control Containers - and please correct me if I'm wrong on this - is that you define the dependencies of a class in its constructor:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(IDataSource ds, UnitOfMeasure default_uom) {...}
}
and then call instantiate your class with something like
var mc = IoC.Container.Resolve<MyClass>();
Where IDataSource has been assigned a concrete implementation and default_uom has been wired up to instantiate from the ApplicationSettings.DefaultUnitOfMeasure property. I've got to wonder however, if all these hoops are really that necessary to jump through. What trouble am I setting myself up for should I do
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(IDataSource ds) {
UnitOfMeasure duom = IoC.Container.Resolve<UnitOfMeasure>("default_uom");
}
}
Yes, many of my classes end up with a dependency on IoC.Container but that is a dependency that most of my classes will have anyways. It seems like I maybe should make full use of it as long as the classes are coupled. Please Agile gurus, tell me where I'm wrong.
IoC.Container.Resolve("default_uom");
I see this as a classic anti-pattern, where you are using the IoC container as a service locater - the key issues that result are:
Your application no longer fails-fast if your container is misconfigured (you'll only know about it the first time it tries to resolve that particular service in code, which might not occur except for a specific set of logic/circumstances).
Harder to test - not impossible of course, but you either have to create a real (and semi-configured) instance of the windsor container for your tests or inject the singleton with a mock of IWindsorContainer - this adds a lot of friction to testing, compared to just being able to pass the mock/stub services directly into your class under test via constructors/properties.
Harder to maintain this kind of application (configuration isn't centralized in one location)
Violates a number of other software development principles (DRY, SOC etc.)
The concerning part of your original statement is the implication that most of your classes will have a dependency on your IoC singleton - if they're getting all the services injected in via constructors/dependencies then having some tight coupling to IoC should be the exception to the rule - In general the only time I take a dependency on the container is when I'm doing something tricky i.e. trying to avoid a circular dependency problems, or wish to create components at run-time for some reason, and even then I can often avoid taking a dependency on anything more then a generic IServiceProvider interface, allowing me to swap in a home-bake IoC or service locater implementation if I need to reuse the components in an environment outside of the original project.
I usually don't have many classes depending on my IoC container. I usually try to wrap the IoC stuff in a facade object that I inject into other classes, usually most of my IoC injection is done only in the higher layers of my application though.
If you do things your way you can't test MyClass without creating a IoC configuration for your tests. This will make your tests harder to maintain.
Another problem is that you're going to have powerusers of your software who want to change the configuration editing your IoC config files. This is something I'd want to avoid. You could split up your IoC config into a normal config file and the IoC specific stuff. But then you could just as well use the normal .Net config functionality to read the configuration.
Yes, many of my classes end up with a dependency on IoC.Container but that is a dependency that most of my classes will have anyways.
I think this is the crux of the issue. If in fact most of your classes are coupled to the IoC container itself chances are you need to rethink your design.
Generally speaking your app should only refer to the container class directly once during the bootstrapping. After you have that first hook into the container the rest of the object graph should be entirely managed by the container and all of those objects should be oblivious to the fact that they were created by an IoC container.
To comment on your specific example:
public class MyClass {
public MyClass(IDataSource ds) {
UnitOfMeasure duom = IoC.Container.Resolve<UnitOfMeasure>("default_uom");
}
}
This makes it harder to re-use your class. More specifically it makes it harder to instantiate your class outside of the narrow usage pattern you are confining it to. One of the most common places this will manifest itself is when trying to test your class. It's much easier to test that class if the UnitOfMeasure can be passed to the constructor directly.
Also, your choice of name for the UOM instance ("default_uom") implies that the value could be overridden, depending on the usage of the class. In that case, you would not want to "hard-code" the value in the constructor like that.
Using the constructor injection pattern does not make your class dependent on the IoC, just the opposite it gives clients the option to use the IoC or not.