In this post/video we continue our look into base concepts of ASP.NET Core, in preparation to what’s in our way for building the application. This ...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
DI is just a parameter of method, why so complicated?
You're right, DI is really a simple concept.
I can't speak from experience, as I never built such a framework, but I would say the complexity comes from building (potentially complex) objects graphs automatically at runtime, given the configuration we provide.
In C# (and for what I've seen of Java) the solutions are very similar to this. Other languages have probably different approaches, maybe they're simpler, can't really say.
I had ever done java and c# projects and know a little DI like spring. Later I select Ruby, when I do rails project I find I need DI to mock test, but no need for DI framework.
Maybe big project need a complicated DI framework like Spring.
Yeah, didn't do anything with Ruby myself, so can't make a good comparison.
Maybe we're lucky and there's another DEV member reading this that has experience in both and wants to chime in 🙂.
Welcome, happy to talk DI with you. I have the short ruby code to demo:
Ah, I see, you create a factory and then use it instead of creating the
Product
directly.In C# we normally use the dependency injection container as the factory (we still use factories on occasion, but for different reasons).
Using the container as the factory, and it being tightly integrated into the web framework, in the controllers, like you can see above, we just add the dependencies we want in the constructor, and the framework passes them in automatically.
In Ruby code is like this. Don't need a DI container.
Yupe. Different ways to get to the same end result of decoupling components 🙂
I like the C# approach, probably because I'm used to it, but I can understand that coming from other languages it seems overly complex.
Being able to just declare the dependencies in the constructor and they'll be there when running is nice (even if a bit magic) and gives quick visibility on the dependencies of a given class just by looking at the constructor. It does come with the hidden complexity you talked about, so as always, there are trade offs.
Many thanks for this chapter, see questions below:
How do I when to use a 3rd party DI or IoC in my project
Why did you use an extension method for ToViewModel and ToServiceModel? Although it seems a little confusing to me but I will go over it again till am able to understand it's use case.
Which other way can be use to achieve the use of the extension method as you have done without using an extension method?
Thank you for your reply always.
Hi there!
Let's see if I can answer all of them:
GroupMappings.ToViewModel(group)
, we can dogroup.ToViewModel()
. Was this the question, or another thing?Thank you for your responses.
I quite understand your answers to my questions (1 and 2).
I guess I should follow up with your tutorial to the next episode perhaps I will better understand your answer to the 3rd question.
I will revert back to you with more questions.