Using a IOC container will decrease the speed of your application because most of them uses reflection under the hood. They also can make your code more difficult to understand(?). On the bright side; they help you create more loosely coupled applications and makes unit testing easier. Are there other pros and cons for using/not using a IOC container?
If you're using an IOC container in a simple fashion, reflection is only used on startup - the application is wired up to start with, and then it runs as normal without any intervention from the container. Of course, if you're using the IOC to resolve dependencies after you've started running, that may be slightly different - although I'd still expect it to resolve lazily and cache unless you've got it configured to create new instances each time.
As for making the code harder to understand - quite the reverse! With the dependencies explicitly stated, it's much easier to understand each component, and the configuration file(s) make it clear how the whole application hangs together.
Well I suppose a con I've experienced is that some developers don't seem to be able to grasp IoC. We've had a few people who were against it for no reason other than that they didn't understand them. (Not saying that's a bad reason to be against something, not at all.)
It does add a bit of abstraction that always seems to manage to confuse someone or other, but I'd say the pros far outweigh the cons in most cases.
I think it is fair to say if you have expert understanding of how to use IOC and tend to write good code anyway, then IOC will make your code easier to understand on all but the smallest systems.
However if you are working somewhere where most classes/methods are very large and the concept of refactoring has not yet taken hold, then trying to use an IOC is likely just to make the software harder to understand. The IOC also has to be leant by everyone that programs on the project, so that may be a consideration.
I see IOC as icing on the cake; I like the icing but only on a nice cake. If the cake is not nice to start with, sort out the cake first.
As to the performance overhead of using IOC, I don’t see this as a problem in most cases. The overhead need not be large, and given the speed of today’s CPU most of you run time is likely to be data access anyway. If a IOC proved to slow for a given bit of code I would look at adding some caching of returned object, or removing the IOC just from that bit of code.
I believe the assumption about reduced execution speed is much the same kind of argument as "C is faster than C#/Java". While this statement may be true for specific operations and/or structurally simple tasks it is not the case the moment complexity rises.
The way DI-frameworks let you focus on object creation and dependencies creates more efficient systems when code size increases. For large applications I'm almost certain DI-framework based code will outperform any alternative solution. There's simply so little redundancy in the runtime that it's hard to make it more efficient! Most of the additional overhead is also just at first load.
Advanced DI containers also lets you do "scope" magic that you can only dream of without the container. Using scope-proxies, spring can do the following:
A Singleton
|
B Singleton
|
C Prototype (per-invocation)
|
D Singleton
|
E Session scope (web app)
|
F Singleton
Effectively you can have ten layers of singleton objects and all of a sudden something session scoped shows up.
Stuff like security can be injected in totally different manner than you would otherwise. There's often a classical paradox: Often the GUI layer needs to have intricate knowledge of the security permissions. Quite often the services layer also needs this, but often at a different level of detail (usually less detailed than the gui). The classical approach would be to send it around as parameters, put it on a threadlocal or to ask a service. With spring you can just inject it straght where you need it and no-one else needs to know.
This actually changes application development as a whole. I had a real hard time adjusting to this, but after this pain I see it is truly a lot closer to how things should be (as opposed to how we've learned to do it).
So I think DI frameworks have the potential of changing the way you make programs, with much further reaching implications than just DI. It's not just a glorified way of calling new.
I agree with all the answers so far.
What I'd like to add, is that it creates a bit of overhead, so it isn't really suited for small applications.
Mid-size and larger applications benefit the most from using IoC.
You might also check out this question for more information on pros and cons: Castle Windsor Are There Any Downsides?
In most circumstances you would not even notice performance penalty since for "singleton" objects all the initialization is performed once only. I would also argue that IoC makes it different to understand the code: on the contrary, IoC-style development forces you to create small coherent classes, which are in turn easier to grok.
If you are writing a business application, using an inversion-of-control and dependency-injection container (in conjunction with other agile practices and tools) will help you out in terms of productivity and reliability.
Moreover, your application will probably spend a vast majority of its CPU time waiting for resources or waiting for human interaction and doing nothing useful. Your application should have plenty of horsepower to spare for a few microseconds of reflection.
It seeks to reduce their dependency with IOC by ensuring object instance management within the application. The framework, rather than the developer, is in charge of creating and managing dependencies in your project.
The framework calls and runs our code when we write a block of code, and the entire event of passing control back to the framework is known as the Inversion of Control.
It enables the execution of a method separate from its
implementation.
It enables you to switch between multiple implementations with ease.
increases the modularity of the software
Because dependencies are reduced, it is simple to test and write.
Related
I'm working on a simple eCart system using .net4 (c#). I've been doing a lot of reading about Unit of Work Pattern, Repository Pattern, and Persistence Ignorance. I think I have a grasp on the strategy and benefits to building my layers this way, but for my simple app I'm wondering if it's necessary and if anyone can point me towards good architecture for my scope.
Please correct me if I'm wrong - the main benefits to using repositories are to create fewer trips to the DB and to separate application architecture from DB architecture. IE - what's good for DB performance isn't always good for application design so it's best to design what's best for both and then create an interface between the two.
So here's the question - I want any business transaction that occurs to be saved to the DB as soon as it occurs, so there doesn't seem to be a point in queuing data in repositories and then saving it immediately. Why not just save it directly?
Are there other benefits of DDD that I'm missing or would it be over engineering to build out such a robust architecture for every simple project that comes along? Thanks for any help.
Do you need to use [insert pattern here]: Nope When it comes right down to it, the best practice is always the one that gets your application done, and meets the time, monetary, and technical requirements.
But if you take the "lets just get it done" approach, then be aware of the Technical Debt you might be incurring.
Also there are a lot of reasons to use some of these patterns (and they don't always have to do with performance), particularly the Unit Of Work pattern. This has more to do with the requirements and restrictions that often come with ORM's and such. These issues can be a bit complex, but I suspect as you begin to implement some of these things you'll start to realize what those issues are and come to understand why these patterns are useful.
Agree with CodingGorilla. Patterns are great unless they conflict with YAGNI.
If every transaction needs to be written immediately (that is, if you have potential contention between the actions of two users) then you will need a queuing mechanism or you can use the underlying transactional mechanism of whatever data repository you might be using (e.g. SQL)
I have finally decided to hop up on the train of MVC 2.
Now I have been doing a lot of reading lately and following is the architecture which I think will be good enough for most Business Web Applications.
Layered Architecture:-
Model (layer which communicates with Database). EF4
Repository (Layer which communicates with Model and includes all the queries)
Business Layer (Validations, Helper Functions, Calls to repository)
Controllers (Controls the flow of the application and is responsible for providing data to the view from the Business Layer.)
Views (UI)
Now I have decided to create a separate project for each layer (Just to respect the separation of concerns dilemma. Although I know it's not necessary but I think it makes the project look more professional :-)
I am using AutoMetaData t4 template for Validation. I also came across FluentValidation but cant find much on it. Which one should I go with?
Which View Engine to go for?
Razor View Engine Was Love at first sight. But it's still in beta and I think it won't be easy to find examples of it. Am I right?
Spark .. I can't find much on it either and don't want to get stuck somewhere in the middle crying for help when there is no one to listen...:-(
T4 templates auto generate views and I can customize them to generate the views the way I want? Will this be possible with razor and spark or do I have to create them manually?
Is there any way to Auto generate the repositories?
I would really appreciate it if I can see a project based on the architecture above.
Kindly to let me know if it's a good architecture to follow.
I have some confusion on the business layer like is it really necessary?
This is a very broad question. I decided to use Fluent NHibernate's autoconfig feature for a greenfield application, and was quite impressed. A lot of my colleagues use CakePHP, and it needed very little configuration to get it to generate a database schema compatible with the default conventions cake uses, which is great for us.
I highly suggest the book ASP.NET MVC2 in Action. This book does a good job at covering the ecosystem of libraries that are used in making a maintainable ASP.NET MVC application.
As for the choice of view engines, that can depend on your background. I personally prefer my view to look as much like the HTML as possible, so I would choose Spark. On the other hand if you are used to working with ASP.NET classic, the WebForms view engine may get you up and running fastest.
Kindly to let me know if its a good architecture to follow?
It's a fine start - the only thing I would suggest you add is a layer of abstraction between your Business Logic and Data Access (i.e: Dependency Inversion / Injection) - see this: An Introduction to Dependency Inversion.
i know its not necessary but i think it makes the project looks more professional :-)
Ha! Usually you'll find that a lot of "stuff" isn't necessary - right up until the moment when it is, at which point it's usually too late.
Re View Engines: I'm still a newbie to ASP.NET MVC myself and so aren't familiar with the view engines your talking about; if I were you I'd dream up some test scenarios and then try tackling them with each product so you can directly compare them. Often, you need to take things for a test drive to be more comfortable - although this might take time, but it's usually worth it.
Edit:
If i suggest this layer to my PM and give him the above two reasons then i don't think he will accept it
Firstly, PM's are not tech leads (usually); you have responsibility for the design of the solution - not the PM. This isn't uncommon, in my experience most of the time the PM isn't even aware they are encroaching on your turf that isn't theres. It's not that I'm a "political land grabber" but I just tend to think of "separation of concerns" and, well, I'm sure you understand.
As the designer / architect it's up to you to interpret requirements and (taking business priorities into account) come up with solution that provides the best 'platform' going forward.
(Regarding DI) My question is , is it really worth it?
If you put a gun to my head I would say yes, however the real world is a little more complex.
If you answer yes to any of these questions then its more likely using DI would be a good idea:
The system is non-trivial
The expected life of the system is more than (not sure what the right figure is here, there probably isn't one, so I'm going to put a stake in the ground at) 2 years.
The system and/or its requirements are fluid.
Splitting up the work (BL / DAL) into different teams would be advantageous to the project (perhaps you're part of a distributed team).
The system is intended for a market with a diverse technical landscape (e.g: not everyone will want to use MS SQL).
You want to perform quality testing (this would make it easier).
The system is large / complex, so splitting up functionality and putting it into other systems is a possibility.
You want to offer more than one way to store data (say a file based repository for free, and a database driven repository for a fee).
Business drivers / environment are volatile - what if they came to you and said "this is excellent but now we want to offer a cloud-based version, can you put it on Azure?"
Id also like to point out that whilst there's definitely a learning curve involved it's not that huge, and once you're up-to-speed you'll still be at least as fast as you are now; or at worst you;ll take a little longer but you'll be providing much more value (with relatively less effort).
In terms of how much effort is involved...
One-Off Tasks (beyond getting the team up to speed):
Writting a Provider Loader or picking DI Framework. Once you've done this it will be reusable in all your projects.
'New' Common Tasks (assuming you're following the approach taken in the article):
Defining interface (on paper) - this is something you'll be doing right now anyway, except that you might not realise it. Basically it's OO Design, but as it's going to be the formal interface between two or more packages you need to give it some thought (and yes you can still refactor it - but ideally the interface should be "stable" and not change a lot; if it does change it's better to 'add' than to 'remove or change' existing members).
Writting interface code. This is very fast (minutes not hours), as you're not writting any implementation; and when you go to implement you can use tools provided by your IDE to generate code-stubs based on the interface.
Things you do now that you'd do differently:
Instantiating a variable (in your BL classes) to hold the provider, probably via a factory. Writting this shouldn't take long (again, minutes not hours) and it's fairly simple code to copy, paste & refactor where required.
Writing the DAL code: should be the same as before.
Sometimes it is way more easy to learn patterns from code : Sharp Architecture is a concrete implementation of good practices in MVC, using DDD.
I've seen it in the context of classes. I suspect it means that the class could use being broken down into logical subunits, but I can't find a good definition. Could you give some examples?
Thanks for the help.
Edit: I love the smart replies, but I'm obviously referring to "monolithic" within a software context. I know about monoliths, megaliths, dolmens, and all the stone-related contexts. Gee, I have enough of them in my country...
Interesting question. I don't think there are any formal definitions of what a monolithic class is, but you've got the idea. A class that contains multiple components that are logically unconnected, or pointlessly coupled, is a monolithic class.
If you've read The Pragmatic Programmer, which I strongly recommend, you can define a monolithic class as an anti-pattern that goes against almost everything from that book.
As for examples, you'll find more in the realm of chip and OS design, where there are formal definitions of monolithic chips/kernels, which are similar to a monolithic class. Here are some examples, although each of them can be argued against being on this list:
JOGL - Java bindings for OpenGL. This could be arguable, and with good reason.
Most academic projects - For obvious reasons.
If you started programming alone, rather than joining a team, then chances are you can open one of your first projects, and there will be a class that is monolithic.
If you look up the etymology of the word you'll see it comes from the Greek monos (single) and lithos (stone). In the context of software as you mention it, it describes a single-tiered application in which the code for the user interface and the data access are combined into a single program from a single platform.
"Monolithic" is a term that has been used to flame succesful software. This link exposes the assumptions inherent in the term, and their limited usefulness.
The basic assumption is that a system works better if it is built from software components that each have an individual, well-defined task. Intuitively, this seems right. If each component works, the entire system must work, right?
In reality, it's not that easy. A larger, compositional (non-monolithic) system can miss a critical function, even when there is no single component to blame. This happens when the architectural design fails to allocate a function to any specific component. This can happen especially if it's a function which doesn't map cleanly to a single component.
Now Linux (to continue with the linked example) in reality is not monolithic. It has a modular userspace on top of a monolithic kernel, a userspace that comes with many separate utilities. Except when it doesn't.
My definition of a Monolithic design in software development, is a design which requires additional functionality to be added to a single indivisible block of code.
PRO:
Everything is in one place, and therefore easy to find
Can be simpler, given there less relations to consider (can also be more complex see cons)
CONS:
Over time as functionality is added the complexity of the system may exponentially increase, to the point new features are extremely hard or impossible to implement
Can make it difficult for multiple developers to work with e.g Entity Framework EDMX files have the entire database in a single file which can be extremely difficult for multiple developers to work on.
Reduced re-usability, by definition it does not have smaller components which can be then reused and re-purposed to solve other problems, unless a complete copy of the code is made and then modified.
A monolithic architecture is a model of software structure which is created as one piece where all Rails tools (ActionMailer, ActiveJob, ActionCable, etc.) can be gathered together with the code that these tools applies. The tools are not connected with each other but they are also not autonomous.
If one feature needs changes, it will influence the work of the whole process and other features because they are parts of one process.
Let’s recall what Ruby on Rails is, what it can offer, its pros and cons. Its most important benefit is that it is easy to work with.
If you write rails new you immediately get a new application at once, then you can create any REST API you want and use Rails helpers and generators, which makes development even easier.
If you need to send emails in your Rails app, then use Rails ActionMailer. When you need to do some hard processing, ActiveJob will help you. With Rails 5 you will also be able to use websockets out of the box. Thus, it will be easy to create chats or make your application more interactive.
In case you use correct DSL syntax, you can use all that and even more immediately. Moreover, you don’t have to know everything about the internal implementation of these tools, consider it’s DSL, and receive the expected result.
It means something is the opposite of modular. A modular application can have parts, referred to as modules, replaced without requiring replacement of the entire application. Whereas a monolithic application, after having a part fixed or upgraded, must be replaced in it's entirety.
From Wikipedia: "Modularity is desirable, in general, as it supports reuse of parts of the application logic and also facilitates maintenance by allowing repair or replacement of parts of the application without requiring wholesale replacement."
So in the context of a monolithic class, all its features are self-contained and if you want to add or alter a feature to the class you would need to alter/add code in the class and recompile it. Conversely a modular class exposes access to functionality which is implemented externally. For example a "Calculator" class may use a separate "Add" class for actually adding numbers; call a "Multiply" function from a separate library; or even call an "Amortize" function from a web service. As long as the each of these functional parts can be altered externally from the class, it is modular.
Looking at Microsoft's Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF) and various IoC containers (such as Unity), I am failing to see when to use one type of solution over the other. More specifically, it seems like MEF handles most IoC type patterns and that an IoC container like Unity would not be as necessary.
Ideally, I would like to see a good use case where an IoC container would be used instead of, or in addition to, MEF.
When boiled down, the main difference is that IoC containers are generally most useful with static dependencies (known at compile-time), and MEF is generally most useful with dynamic dependencies (known only at run-time).
As such, they are both composition engines, but the emphasis is very different for each pattern. Design decisions thus vary wildly, as MEF is optimized around discovery of unknown parts, rather than registrations of known parts.
Think about it this way: if you are developing your entire application, an IoC container is probably best. If you are writing for extensibility, such that 3rd-party developers will be extending your system, MEF is probably best.
Also, the article in #Pavel Nikolov's answer provides some great direction (it is written by Glenn Block, MEF's program manager).
I've been using MEF for a while and the key factor for when we use it instead of IOC products is that we regularly have 3-5 implementations of a given interface sitting in our plugins directory at a given time. Which one of those implementations should be used is actually something that can only be decided at runtime.
MEF is good at letting you do just that. Typically, IOC is geared toward making sure you could swap out, for a cononical example, an IUserRepository based on ORM Product 1 for ORM Product 2 at some point in the future. However, most IOC solutions assume that there will only be one IUserRepository in effect at a given time.
If, however, you need to choose one based on the input data for a given page request, IOC containers are typically at a loss.
As an example, we do our permission checking and our validation via MEF plugins for a big web app I've been working on for a while. Using MEF, we can look at when the record's CreatedOn date and go digging for the validation plugin that was actually in effect when the record was created and run the record BOTH through that plugin AND the validator that's currently in effect and compare the record's validity over time.
This kind of power also lets us define fallthrough overrides for plugins. The apps I'm working on are actually the same codebase deployed for 30+ implementations. So, we've typically go looking for plugins by asking for:
An interface implementation that is specific to the current site and the specific record type in question.
An interface implementation that is specific to the current site, but works with any kind of record.
An interface that works for any site and any record.
That lets us bundle a set of default plugins that will kick in, but only if that specific implementation doesn't override it with customer specific rules.
IOC is a great technology, but really seems to be more about making it easy to code to interfaces instead of concrete implementations. However, swapping those implementations out is more of a project shift kind of event in IOC. In MEF, you take the flexibility of interfaces and concrete implementations and make it a runtime decision between many available options.
I am apologizing for being off-topic. I simply wanted to say that there are 2 flaws that render MEF an unnecessary complication:
it is attribute based which doesn't do any good to helping you figuring out why things work as they do. There's no way to get to the details burred in the internals of the framework to see what exactly is going on there. There is no way to get a tracing log or hook up to the resolving mechanisms and handle unresolved situations manually
it doesn't have any troubleshooting mechanism to figure out the reasons for why some parts get rejected. Despite pointing at a failing part it doesn't tell you why that part has failed.
So I am very disappointed with it. I spent too much time fighting windmills trying to bootstrap a few classes instead of working on the real problems. I convinced there is nothing better than the old-school dependency injection technique when you have full control over what is created, when, and can trace anything in the VS debugger. I wish somebody who advocates MEF presented a bunch of good reasons as to why would I choose it over plain DI.
I agree that MEF can be a fully capable IoC framework. In fact I'm writing an application right now based on using MEF for both extensibility and IoC. I took the generic parts of it and made it into a "framework" and open sourced it as its own framework called SoapBox Core in case people want to see how it works.
In particular, take a look at how the Host works if you want to see MEF in action.
I think the title speaks for itself guys - why should I write an interface and then implement a concrete class if there is only ever going to be 1 concrete implementation of that interface?
I think you shouldn't ;)
There's no need to shadow all your classes with corresponding interfaces.
Even if you're going to make more implementations later, you can always extract the interface when it becomes necessary.
This is a question of granularity. You cannot clutter your code with unnecessary interfaces but they are useful at boundaries between layers.
Someday you may try to test a class that depends on this interface. Then it's nice that you can mock it.
I'm constantly creating and removing interfaces. Some were not worth the effort and some are really needed. My intuition is mostly right but some refactorings are necessary.
The question is, if there is only going to ever be one concrete implementation, should there be an interface?
YAGNI - You Ain't Gonna Need It from Wikipedia
According to those who advocate the YAGNI approach, the temptation to write code that is not necessary at the moment, but might be in the future, has the following disadvantages:
* The time spent is taken from adding, testing or improving necessary functionality.
* The new features must be debugged, documented, and supported.
* Any new feature imposes constraints on what can be done in the future, so an unnecessary feature now may prevent implementing a necessary feature later.
* Until the feature is actually needed, it is difficult to fully define what it should do and to test it. If the new feature is not properly defined and tested, it may not work right, even if it eventually is needed.
* It leads to code bloat; the software becomes larger and more complicated.
* Unless there are specifications and some kind of revision control, the feature may not be known to programmers who could make use of it.
* Adding the new feature may suggest other new features. If these new features are implemented as well, this may result in a snowball effect towards creeping featurism.
Two somewhat conflicting answers to your question:
You do not need to extract an interface from every single concrete class you construct, and
Most Java programmers don't build as many interfaces as they should.
Most systems (even "throwaway code") evolve and change far past what their original design intended for them. Interfaces help them to grow flexibly by reducing coupling. In general, here are the warning signs that you ought to be coding to an interface:
Do you even suspect that another concrete class might need the same interface (like, if you suspect your data access objects might need XML representation down the road -- something that I've experienced)?
Do you suspect that your code might need to live on the other side of a Web Services layer?
Does your code forms a service layer to some outside client?
If you can honestly answer "no" to all these questions, then an interface might be overkill. Might. But again, unforeseen consequences are the name of the game in programming.
You need to decide what the programming interface is, by specifying the public functions. If you don't do a good job of that, the class would be difficult to use.
Therefore, if you decide later you need to create a formal interface, you should have the design ready to go.
So, you do need to design an interface, but you don't need to write it as an interface and then implement it.
I use a test driven approach to creating my code. This will often lead me to create interfaces where I want to supply a mock or dummy implementation as part of my test fixture.
I would not normally create any code unless it has some relevance to my tests, and since you cannot easily test an interface, only an implementation, that leads me to create interfaces if I need them when supplying dependencies for a test case.
I will also sometimes create interfaces when refactoring, to remove duplication or improve code readability.
You can always refactor your code to introduce an interface if you find out you need one later.
The only exception to this would be if I were designing an API for release to a third party - where the cost of making API changes is high. In this case I might try to predict the type of changes I might need to do in the future and work out ways of creating my API to minimise future incompatible changes.
One thing which no one mentioned yet, is that sometimes it is necessary in order to avoid depenency issues. you can have the interface in a common project with few dependencies and the implementation in a separate project with lots of dependencies.
"Only Ever going to have One implementation" == famous last words
It doesn't cost much to make an interface and then derive a concrete class from it. The process of doing it can make you rethink your design and often leads to a better end product. And once you've done it, if you ever find yourself eating those words - as frequently happens - you won't have to worry about it. You're already set. Whereas otherwise you have a pile of refactoring to do and it's gonna be a pain.
Editted to clarify: I'm working on the assumption that this class is going to be spread relatively far and wide. If it's a tiny utility class used by one or two other classes in a single package then yeah, don't worry about it. If it's a class that's going to be used in multiple packages by multiple other classes then my previous answer applies.
The question should be: "how can you ever be sure, that there is only going to ever be one concrete implementation?"
How can you be totally sure?
By the time you thought this through, you would already have created the interface and be on your way without assumptions that might turn out to be wrong.
With today's coding tools (like Resharper), it really doesn't take much time at all to create and maintain interfaces alongside your classes, whereas discovering that now you need an extra implementation and to replace all concrete references can take a long time and is no fun at all - believe me.
A lot of this is taken from a Rainsberger talk on InfoQ: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/integration-tests-scam
There are 3 reasons to have a class:
It holds some Value
It helps Persist some entity
It performs some Service
The majority of services should have interfaces. It creates a boundary, hides implementation, and you already have a second client; all of the tests that interact with that service.
Basically if you would ever want to Mock it out in a unit test it should have an interface.