Tuesday, 26 January 2010 19:24:51 UTC

Reacting to my previous post, Krzysztof Koźmic was so kind to point out to me that I really should be using an IWindsorInstaller instead of writing the registration code in a static helper method (it did make me cringe a bit).

As it turns out, IWindsorInstaller is not a particularly well-described feature of Castle Windsor, so here's a quick introduction. Fortunately, it is very easy to understand.

The idea is simply to package configuration code in reusable modules (just like the Guice modules from Uncle Bob's post).

Refactoring the bootstrap code from my previous post, I can now move all the container configuration code into a reusable module:

public class BillingContainerInstaller : IWindsorInstaller
    #region IWindsorInstaller Members
    public void Install(IWindsorContainer container,
        IConfigurationStore store)

While I was at it, I also changed from the fluent registration API to the generic registration methods as I didn't really need the full API, but I could have left it as it was.

BillingContainerInstaller implements IWindsorInstaller, and I can now configure my container instance like this:

var container = new WindsorContainer();
container.Install(new BillingContainerInstaller());

The Install method takes a parameter array of IWindsorInstaller instances, so you can pass as many as you'd like.


Thomas #
It seemes that this feature is something like Registry in StructureMap?
2010-01-26 21:35 UTC
I have to admit that I'm not yet entirely up to speed on all the different DI Containers out there, but it's a common feature that several DI Containers have.
2010-01-26 22:04 UTC
This may be trivial, but remember to implement a ReleasePolicy when using transient objects. Otherwise you will use an unheard amount of RAM to hold all instances created, because .Release() will not be called on each one of them.
2010-01-27 07:14 UTC
Thanks for pointing that out - did you have this particular blog post in mind?

I'll have to investigate whether that still holds true. If so, I would be inclined to consider it a bug on Windsor's part, but it may be by design, influenced by considerations I simply have yet to realize.
2010-01-27 08:17 UTC
Windsor committer Krzysztof Koźmic was so kind to investigate this, and he left a comment at the blog post to the effect that this was a bug in Windsor. It is now fixed in Windsor 2.1, so having dependencies implement IDisposable should be enough.
2010-01-27 09:02 UTC
urkurk #
hi mark,

was wondering where i could find a sample application that uses castle windsor and asp.net webforms?
2010-04-04 09:52 UTC
Hi urkurk

Thank you for writing. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of such a sample application. Have you tried asking on the Castle Windsor forum?
2010-04-04 14:49 UTC
The system is not modular when you have to explicitly instanciate the BillingContainerInstaller on your code and pass the instance to the install method, I haven't investigate on the IWindsorInstaller yet, but I'm hoping that Windsor during the normal registration process of components canintercept those that implement that interface, and automatically call the Install method.

This sounds very similar to the startable facility though, with the important difference that in this case you have some more arguments.
2010-09-22 09:25 UTC
AFAIR the new version of Castle Windsor (2.5) enables you to specify installers in app.config.
2010-09-22 09:47 UTC
Sasireka #

I am new to castle windsor. Could you please tell me the difference between container.AddComponent(...) & container.Register(component.For<...>..).

When we need to use AddComponent() / Register()?

Thanks in advance !
2011-08-11 09:39 UTC
AFAIK AddComponent is a legacy method and will be removed in future versions of Castle Windsor, but that I didn't know when I wrote that specific example :$
2011-08-11 09:44 UTC
Sasireka #
Hi Mark,

Thank you for your answer. I have an another clarification. What are the advantages offer the castle windsor framework rather than using the normal coding.

2011-08-12 05:34 UTC
The same advantage as any other DI Container.

In addition to that, Castle Windsor (and Unity and Spring.NET) also supports interception.
2011-08-12 06:44 UTC
sasireka #
Hi Mark,

I need another help about castle windsor.

Could you please tell about how to check whether the particular assembly registered or not in the castle container.

Actually i am using the below code for register the assembly. i need to avoid the registering process, if it was already registered.

Thanks in advance.
2011-09-19 09:43 UTC
I can't recall off the top of my head - may I suggest that you ask on Stack Overflow?
2011-09-19 10:12 UTC

Dependency Injection Inversion in .NET

Monday, 25 January 2010 20:48:27 UTC

About a week ago Uncle Bob published a post on Dependency Injection Inversion that caused quite a stir in the tiny part of the .NET community I usually pretend to hang out with. Twitter was alive with much debate, but Ayende seems to sum up the .NET DI community's sentiment pretty well:

if this is a typical example of IoC usage in the Java world, then [Uncle Bob] should peek over the fence to see how IoC is commonly implemented in the .Net space

Despite having initially left a more or less positive note to Uncle Bob's post, after having re-read it carefully, I am beginning to think the same, but instead of just telling everyone how much greener the grass is on the .NET side, let me show you.

First of all, let's translate Uncle Bob's BillingService to C#:

public class BillingService
    private readonly CreditCardProcessor processor;
    private readonly TransactionLog transactionLog;
    public BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor,
        TransactionLog transactionLog)
        if (processor == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("processor");
        if (transactionLog == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("transactionLog");
        this.processor = processor;
        this.transactionLog = transactionLog;
    public void ProcessCharge(int amount, string id)
        var approval = this.processor.Approve(amount, id);
            "Transaction by {0} for {1} {2}", id, amount, 
    private string GetApprovalCode(bool approval)
        return approval ? "approved" : "denied";

It's nice how easy it is to translate Java code to C#, but apart from casing and other minor deviations, let's focus on the main difference. I've added Guard Clauses to protect the injected dependencies against null values as I consider this an essential and required part of Constructor Injection - I think Uncle Bob should have added those as well, but he might have omitted them for brevity.

If you disregard the Guard Clauses, the C# version is a logical line of code shorter than the Java version because it has no DI attribute like Guice's @Inject.

Does this mean that we can't do DI with the C# version of BillingService? Uncle Bob seems to imply that we can do Dependency Inversion, but not Dependency Injection - or is it the other way around? I can't really make head or tails of that part of the post…

The interesting part is that in .NET, there's no difference! We can use DI Containers with the BillingService without sprinkling DI attributes all over our code base. The BillingService class has no reference to any DI Container.

It does, however, use the central DI pattern Constructor Injection. .NET DI Containers know all about this pattern, and with .NET's static type system they know all they need to know to wire dependencies up correctly. (I thought that Java had a static type system as well, but perhaps I am mistaken.) The .NET DI Containers will figure it out for you - you don't have to explicitly tell them how to invoke a constructor with two parameters.

We can write an entire application by using Constructor Injection and stacking dependencies without ever referencing a container!

Like the Lean concept of the Last Responsible Moment, we can wait until the application's entry point to decide how we will wire up the dependencies.

As Uncle Bob suggests, we can use Poor Man's DI and manually create the dependencies directly in Main, but as Ayende correctly observes, that only looks like an attractive alternative because the example is so simple. For complex dependency graphs, a DI Container is a much better choice.

With the C# version of BillingService, which DI Container must we select?

It doesn't matter: we can choose whichever one we would like because we have been following patterns instead of using a framework.

Here's an example of an implementation of Main using Castle Windsor:

public static void Main(string[] args)
    var container = new WindsorContainer();
    var billingService =
    billingService.ProcessCharge(2034, "Bob");

This looks a lot like Uncle Bob's first Guice example, but instead of injecting a BillingModule into the container, we can configure it inline or in a helper method:

private static void Configure(WindsorContainer container)

This corresponds more or less to the Guice-specific BillingModule, although Windsor also requires us to register the concrete BillingService as a component (this last step varies a bit from DI Container to DI Container - it is, for example, redundant in Unity).

Imagine that in the future we want to rewire this program to use a different DI Container. The only piece of code we need to change is this Composition Root. We need to change the container declaration and configuration and then we are ready to use a different DI Container.

The bottom line is that Uncle Bob's Dependency Injection Inversion is redundant in .NET. Just use a few well-known design patterns and principles and you can write entire applications with DI-friendly, DI-agnostic code bases.

I recently posted a first take on guidelines for writing DI-agnostic code. I plan to evolve these guiding principles and make them a part of my upcoming book.


I don't agree with your implication that Uncle Bob's views are justified in the context of Java's DI frameworks... they are not. He appears to understand neither how DI frameworks in general are supposed to be used nor all the advantages they provide. That's where the real problem lies, not in the differences between .NET and Java frameworks.

The *only* difference between the example you give here and how Guice is used is that in Guice you'd annotate the constructor with @Inject, and I don't really buy there being any significant disadvantage to doing so in most cases. I posted in a bit more detail why I don't think the use of @Inject is a problem on my blog yesterday.
2010-01-26 22:18 UTC
Thanks for your comment.

If my previous post left the impression that I find Uncle Bob's views justified in the context of Java's DI Containers, that was accidental: I have no opinion on whether or not this is the case as I know too little about the detailed mechanics of Java and the DI Containers available there to have an opinion either for or against.

Whether or not a single annotation constitutes a problem or not ended up warranting an entire new blog post in response :)
2010-01-27 19:49 UTC
Ricardo Lacerda Castelo Branco #

I think your code still has the same problem that "Uncle Bob" was trying to solve. If you want a new instance of BillingService from deep in the bowels of the application, you need to reference the container! So, you are creating a dependency on WindsorContainer.

Maybe the solution would be program to an interface instead of depend on a concrete container.

What do you think?
2010-02-01 02:24 UTC
That is actually a different issue, but I agree that if we need to take a dependency on WindsorContainer or any other particular DI Container, we haven't solved the problem.

However, explaining how to deal with that will require another blog post - watch this space the next couple of days.
2010-02-01 05:47 UTC
How do we deal with the issue if we need BillingService deep in the bowels of the application?

Well, take a dependency on BillingService using standard Constructor Injection. Does this mean that we should have to pass an instance of BillingService through all constructors on the way down? No, rather not.

The answer lies in Aggregate Services. Instead of taking dependencies with the only purpose of passing them on to other dependencies, we can define a more coarse-grained service that encapsulates the desired behavior. This is exactly the kind of scenario where DI Containers excel, because they are able to auto-wire complex object graphs based entirely on their knowledge of which dependencies are required by each concrete type. They can do that when you use Constructor Injection because this knowledge is statically encoded in the type.

Then what if you need BillingService both deep in the bowels of the application as well as near the surface? In most cases I would say that this is a design smell that indicates that the granularity of BillingService is poorly defined. A dependency should be either a fine-grained 'leaf' dependency, or an Aggregate Service - not both.
2010-02-03 10:03 UTC
Thank You for your great contributions to the community
2011-02-06 11:39 UTC

AutoFixture 1.0 RC2

Wednesday, 20 January 2010 22:59:39 UTC

AutoFixture 1.0 Release Candidate 2 is now available on the CodePlex site! Compared to Release Candidate 1 there are very few changes, but the test period uncovered the need for a few extra methods on a recent addition to the library. RC2 contains these additional methods.

This resets the clock for the Release Candidate trial period. Key users have a chance to veto this release until a week from now. If no-one complains within that period, we will promote RC2 to version 1.0.

The RC2 release page has more details about this particular release.

Enabling DI for Lazy Components

Wednesday, 20 January 2010 18:08:36 UTC

My previous post led to this comment by Phil Haack:

Your LazyOrderShipper directly instantiates an OrderShipper. What about the dependencies that OrderShipper might require? What if those dependencies are costly?

I didn't want to make my original example more complex than necessary to get the point across, so I admit that I made it a bit simpler than I might have liked. However, the issue is easily solved by enabling DI for the LazyOrderShipper itself.

As always, when the dependency's lifetime may be shorter than the consumer, the solution is to inject (via the constructor!) an Abstract Factory, as this modification of LazyOrderShipper shows:

public class LazyOrderShipper2 : IOrderShipper
    private readonly IOrderShipperFactory factory;
    private IOrderShipper shipper;
    public LazyOrderShipper2(IOrderShipperFactory factory)
        if (factory == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("factory");
        this.factory = factory;
    #region IOrderShipper Members
    public void Ship(Order order)
        if (this.shipper == null)
            this.shipper = this.factory.Create();

But, doesn't that reintroduce the OrderShipperFactory that I earlier claimed was a bad design?

No, it doesn't, because this IOrderShipperFactory doesn't rely on static configuration. The other point is that while we do have an IOrderShipperFactory, the original design of OrderProcessor is unchanged (and thus blissfully unaware of the existence of this Abstract Factory).

The lifetime of the various dependencies is completely decoupled from the components themselves, and this is as it should be with DI.

This version of LazyOrderShipper is more reusable because it doesn't rely on any particular implementation of OrderShipper - it can Lazily create any IOrderShipper.


We could indicate optional dependencies by using Func<TResult> - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb534960.aspx - delegates for the given constructor parameter. The given DI framework could be configured to resolve any Func<TResult> as x => Container.Resolve<TResult>()

This way the lazy/optional nature of the parameter is obvious to clients of the class, and there is no need to generate lazy implementation classes manually.

Note: I haven't had any practical experience using DI frameworks, so the above might not be possible at all :)
2010-01-20 20:44 UTC
Yes, Func<T> is sometimes a viable option. In general, I consider delegates to be anonymous interfaces, so Func<T> is really just an Abstract Factory. In other words, IOrderShipperFactory is functionally equivalent to Func<IOrderShipper>.

I had a period where I used a lot of delegates as injected dependencies, but I have more or less abandonded that approach again. While it technically works fine, it makes unit testing a bit harder because it's harder to test that a given object contains a specific type of Strategy if it's just a Func<T> or similar.

In any case, I'm mostly familiar with Castle Windsor at the moment. Although I have yet to try it out, I think the new Typed Factory Facility fits the bill very well - with that, we would never have to code a real implementation of IOrderShipperFactory because Windsor would be able to dynamically emit one for us.
2010-01-20 21:56 UTC
I have the feeling I did not set the context. Let me do that, and tell me if I the issues you raised still hold - both of them are important!

What I meant to propose is that we change Jeffrey Palermo's original example like the below:
- private readonly IOrderShipper _shipper;
+ private readonly Func< IOrderShipper > _shipperFactory;

- public OrderProcessor(IOrderValidator validator, IOrderShipper shipper)
+ public OrderProcessor(IOrderValidator validator, Func< IOrderShipper > shipperFactory)

- _shipper = shipper;
+ _shipperFactory = shipperFactory;

- _shipper.Ship(order);
+ _shipperFactory().Ship(order);

The change to the tests should be straightforward as well,

- new OrderProcessor(validator, mockShipper)
+ new OrderProcessor(validator, () => mockShipper)
2010-01-20 22:29 UTC
I'm surprised no one has mentioned .NET 4's Lazy<T>.

To communicate intent, it's clearer than Func<T>:

public UsesOrderShipper(Lazy<IOrderShipper> orderShipper)

There's a more complete example using Lazy<T> with Autofac.

2010-01-21 10:59 UTC
To be fair, Alwin mentioned it over on Jeffrey Palermo's original post before I posted my response.

That would definitely be an option as well, but I rather wanted to show the route involving absolutely no redesign of the original OrderProcess, and I couldn't do that purely with Lazy<IOrderShipper>. The most important point I wanted to make is that you can solve this problem using basic tools available since .NET 1.0.

It would, however, make a lot of sense to implement LazyOrderShipper by injecting Lazy<IOrderShipper> into it instead of inventing a new IOrderShipperFactory interface.
2010-01-21 17:47 UTC
I like the Func&lt;T&gt; and Lazy&lt;T&gt; solutions for addressing any real performance issues, but based upon the original example I still submit that the cleanest approach would be to just register the type with a singleton lifestyle to begin with. After the first two valid orders, it's more efficient.
2010-01-22 15:25 UTC
@Derek Greer: Aggreed, and that was also my initial point in my previous post.
2010-01-22 23:54 UTC
Thomas #

While it's easy to get it work with Typed Factory Facility and Castle, how do you implement the factory :

- without static configuration ?
- without passing the container in ?

Or I missed something ?


2012-03-14 21:52 UTC
Thomas, who said anything about a DI Container or Castle Windsor for that matter?
2012-03-15 06:47 UTC
Thomas #

I was refering to your first comment. If I have no problem with the pattern I would like to know how you would do from the implementation point of view.


2012-03-15 08:50 UTC
Ah, sorry... I'm not sure I entirely understand the question. With Windsor's Typed Factory Facility, you'd reqister the IOrderShipperFactory as being auto-generated by Windsor. I can't recall the exact syntax for this right now, but that registration would happen as part of the Registration phase of RRR.
2012-03-15 09:26 UTC
Thomas #

With Windsor there is no problem as TypedFactoryFacility provides implementation on the fly. However if you take another container you have to provide the implementation of IOrderShipperFactory on your own. Now the question is. How my implementation of the factory will pull the IOrderShipper implementation from the container ? I see two choices :

- configure staticaly (like Jeffrey did in his post)
- pass the container into the factory that it could resolve IOrderShipper.
- third choice that I don't know :)

I hope it's clearer now. Let me know if it doesn't make sense.


2012-03-15 10:04 UTC
Thomas, I wrote a new blog post to answer your question.

2012-03-15 21:04 UTC
Thomas #
Thanks Mark, I go to read it :)
2012-03-16 14:11 UTC

Rebuttal: Constructor over-injection anti-pattern

Wednesday, 20 January 2010 16:28:03 UTC

Jeffrey Palermo recently posted a blog post titled Constructor over-injection anti-pattern - go read his post first if you want to be able to follow my arguments.

His point seems to be that Constructor Injection can be an anti-pattern if applied too much, particularly if a consumer doesn't need a particular dependency in the majority of cases.

The problem is illustrated in this little code snippet:

bool isValid = _validator.Validate(order);  
if (isValid) 

If the Validate method returns false often, the shipper dependency is never needed.

This, he argues, can lead to inefficiencies if the dependency is costly to create. It's not a good thing to require a costly dependency if you are not going to use it in a lot of cases.

That sounds like a reasonable statement, but is it really? And is the proposed solution a good solution?

No, this isn't a reasonable statement, and the proposed solution isn't a good solution.

It would seem like there's a problem with Constructor Injection, but in reality the problem is that it is being used incorrectly and in too constrained a way.

The proposed solution is problematic because it involves tightly coupling the code to OrderShipperFactory. This is more or less a specialized application of the Service Locator anti-pattern.

Consumers of OrderProcessor have no static type information to warn them that they need to configure the OrderShipperFactory.CreationClosure static member - a completely unrelated type. This may technically work, but creates a very developer-unfriendly API. IntelliSense isn't going to be of much help here, because when you want to create an instance of OrderProcessor, it's not going to remind you that you need to statically configure OrderShipperFactory first. Enter lots of run-time exceptions.

Another issue is that he allows a concrete implementation of an interface to change the design of the OrderProcessor class - that's hardly in the spirit of the Liskov Substitution Principle. I consider this a strong design smell.

One of the commenters (Alwin) suggests instead injecting an IOrderShipperFactory. While this is a better option, it still suffers from letting a concrete implementation influence the design, but there's a better solution.

First of all we should realize that the whole case is a bit construed because although the IOrderShipper implementation may be expensive to create, there's no need to create a new instance for every OrderProcessor. Instead, we can use the so-called Singleton lifetime style where we share or reuse a single IOrderShipper instance between multiple OrderProcessor instances.

The beauty of this is that we can wait making that decision until we wire up the actual dependencies. If we have implementations of IOrderShipper that are inexpensive to create, we may still decide to create a new instance every time.

There may still be a corner case where a shared instance doesn't work for a particular implementation (perhaps because it's not thread-safe). In such cases, we can use Lazy loading to create a LazyOrderShipper like this (for clarity I've omitted making this implementation thread-safe, but that would be trivial to do):

public class LazyOrderShipper : IOrderShipper
    private OrderShipper shipper;
    #region IOrderShipper Members
    public void Ship(Order order)
        if (this.shipper == null)
            this.shipper = new OrderShipper();

Notice that this implementation of IOrderShipper only creates the expensive OrderShipper instance when it needs it.

Instead of directly injecting the expensive OrderShipper instance directly into OrderProcessor, we wrap it in the LazyOrderShipper class and inject that instead. The following test proves the point:

public void OrderProcessorIsFast()
    // Fixture setup
    var stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
    var order = new Order();
    var validator = new Mock<IOrderValidator>();
    validator.Setup(v => 
    var shipper = new LazyOrderShipper();
    var sut = new OrderProcessor(validator.Object,
    // Exercise system
    // Verify outcome
    Assert.IsTrue(stopwatch.Elapsed < 
    // Teardown

This test is significantly faster than 777 milliseconds because the OrderShipper never comes into play. In fact, the stopwatch instance reports that the elapsed time was around 3 ms!

The bottom line is that Constructor Injection is not an anti-pattern. On the contrary, it is the most powerful DI pattern available, and you should think twice before deviating from it.


Thanks for publishing this response. When I read the post yesterday evening, I had a lot of thoughts I was chewing on, and you tackled most of them. I couldn't tell if the "smell" was that the dependency was only sometimes needed, or that the dependency was only sometimes needed, and was expensive to create.

It seemed like the need to create a set of factories and have them make calls into the IOC container directly was a bigger smell. And the fact that the OrderShipper would be comming from a factory setup somewhere else, making code maintenance more difficult, and the application more prone to errors.

Decorating the implementation with a lazy load implementation is very clever. I hadn't thought of that solution, but the singleton lifecycle had.

Well done.
2010-01-20 16:50 UTC
I like this approach, but you've also made a contrived example. Your LazyOrderShipper directly instantiates an OrderShipper. What about the dependencies that OrderShipper might require? What if those dependencies are costly? Is it lazy turtles all the way down?
2010-01-20 17:14 UTC
Constructor over-injection is the problem. I rather like constructor injection
2010-01-20 17:20 UTC
Thank you all for your comments.

The point raised by Phil Haack is valid, so I've addressed it in a second blog post.
2010-01-20 18:09 UTC
SP #
Maybe I'm missing something, but why isn't LazyOrderShipper thread safe as it stands? Your shipper member variable isn't static.
2010-01-20 18:44 UTC
Why isn't LazyOrderShipper thread-safe as it is?

When I wrote that, my thinking was that if the Ship method is hit by two or more threads simultaneously, more than one thread may evaluate the member field to null and start creating a new instance of OrderShipper. At least one of those instance will created, but never permanently assigned, since another thread may overwrite the value.

In this case, it may not lead to any exceptions (that I can think of), but it's inefficient use of resources.

However, every time I post something about threading on this blog, someone will point out my errors, so I'm looking forward to learn which mistake I made this time around :)

I'm no threading expert, in case you were wondering :)
2010-01-20 19:00 UTC
SP #
As yes, your right -- I was thinking the calling code could lock against the object itself, but you would never know when LazyOrderShipper was writing to the property. (I'm not threading guru by any means, either).

Ok, back to DI... :-)
2010-01-20 19:35 UTC
Thomas #
Great post as well as your book
2010-01-20 20:21 UTC
This would be a good solution if the problem wasn't so contrived. I've never run into a scenario where it would take me seven seconds to instantiate an object. It might take me 7 seconds to execute a method, but never instantiate the object itself.

My point is: It is like arguing that my unicorn needs a better saddle, and that saddle will let me ride it better.

I commend you anyways for your effort.
2010-01-22 21:52 UTC
I agree, but I just couldn't let the claim that Constructor Injection is an anti-pattern go by without reacting.
2010-01-22 23:56 UTC

AutoFixture 1.0 RC1

Wednesday, 13 January 2010 22:48:13 UTC

AutoFixture 1.0 Release Candidate 1 is now available on the CodePlex site! AutoFixture is now almost ten months old and has seen extensive use internally in Safewhere during most of this time. It has proven to be very stable, expressive and generally a delight to use.

If all goes well, the Release Candidate period will be short. Key users have a chance to veto the this version, but if no-one complains within a week from now, we will promote RC1 to version 1.0.

The RC1 release page has more detail about this particular release.

Anonymous Get

Monday, 04 January 2010 20:53:24 UTC

In a previous post I described how AutoFixture's Do method can let you invoke commands on your SUT with Dummy values for the parameters you don't care about.

The Get method is the equivalent method you can use when the member you are invoking returns a value. In other words: if you want to call a method on your SUT to get a value, but you don't want the hassle of coming up with values you don't care about, you can let the Get method supply those values for you.

In today's example I will demonstrate a unit test that verifies the behavior of a custom ASP.NET MVC ModelBinder. If you don't know anything about ASP.NET MVC it doesn't really matter. The point is that a ModelBinder must implement the IModelBinder interface that defines a single method:

object BindModel(ControllerContext controllerContext,
    ModelBindingContext bindingContext);

In many cases we don't care about one or the other of these parameters, but we still need to supply them when unit testing.

The example is a bit more complex than some of my other sample code, but once in a while I like to provide you with slightly more realistic AutoFixture examples. Still, it's only 10 lines of code, but it looks like a lot more because I have wrapped several of the lines so that the code is still readable on small screens.

public void BindModelWillReturnCorrectResult()
    // Fixture setup
    var fixture = new Fixture();
    fixture.Customize<ControllerContext>(ob =>
    var value = fixture.CreateAnonymous("Value");
    var bindingContext = new ModelBindingContext();
    bindingContext.ValueProvider = 
        new Dictionary<string, ValueProviderResult>();
    bindingContext.ValueProvider["MyValue"] = 
        new ValueProviderResult(value, value, 
    var expectedResult = 
        new string(value.Reverse().ToArray());
    var sut = fixture.CreateAnonymous<MyModelBinder>();
    // Exercise system
    var result = fixture.Get((ControllerContext cc) =>
        sut.BindModel(cc, bindingContext));
    // Verify outcome
    Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result, "BindModel");
    // Teardown

The first part simply creates the Fixture object and customizes it to disable AutoProperties for all ControllerContext instances (otherwise we would have to set up a lot of Test Doubles for such properties as HttpContext, RequestContext etc.).

The next part of the test sets up a ModelBindingContext instance that will be used to exercise the SUT. In this test case, the bindingContext parameter of the BindModel method is important, so I explicitly set that up. On the other hand, I don't care about the controllerContext parameter in this test case, so I ask the Get method to take care of that for me:

var result = fixture.Get((ControllerContext cc) =>
    sut.BindModel(cc, bindingContext));

The Get method creates a Dummy value for the ControllerContext, whereas I can still use the outer variable bindingContext to call the BindModel method. The return value of the BindModel method is returned to the result variable by the Get method.

Like the Do methods, the Get methods are generic methods. The one invoked in this example has this signature:

public TResult Get<T, TResult>(Func<T, TResult> function);

There are also overloads that works with the versions of the Func delegate that takes two, three and four parameters.

As the Do methods, the Get methods are convenience methods that let you concentrate on writing the test code you care about while it takes care of all the rest. You could have written a slightly more complex version that didn't use Get but instead used the CreateAnonymous method to create an Anonymous Variable for the ControllerContext, but this way is slightly more succinct.

MEF TechTalk with me

Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:56:33 UTC

I'll be doing a TechTalk on the Managed Extensibility Framework and Dependency Injection at Microsoft Denmark January 20th 2010.

The talk will be in Danish. Details and sign-up here.

Wiring ASP.NET MVC Error Handling with Castle Windsor

Monday, 14 December 2009 06:59:32 UTC

In my previous posts I discussed how to enable global error handling in ASP.NET MVC and how to inject a logging interface into the error handler. In these posts, I simplified things a bit to get my points across.

In production we don't use a custom ErrorHandlingControllerFactory to configure all Controllers with error handling, nor do we instantiate IExceptionFilters manually. What I described was the Poor Man's Dependency Injection (DI) approach, which I find most appropriate when describing DI concepts.

However, we really use Castle Windsor currently, so the wiring looks a bit different although it's still exactly the same thing that's going on. Neither ErrorHandlingActionInvoker nor LoggingExceptionFilter are any different than I have already described, but for completeness I wanted to share a bit of our Windsor code.

This is how we really wire our Controllers:

    .ConfigureFor<Controller>(reg => 
            new { ActionInvoker = typeof(
                .FullName })));

Most of this statement simply instructs Windsor to scan all types in the specified assembly for Controller implementations and register them. The interesting part is the ServiceOverrides method call that uses Windsor's rather excentric syntax for defining that the ActionInvoker property should be wired up with an instance of the component registered as ErrorHandlingControllerActionInvoker.

Since ErrorHandlingControllerActionInvoker itself expects an IExceptionFilter instance we need to configure at least one of these as well. Instead of one, however, we have two:


This is Windsor's elegant way of registering Decorators: you simply register the Decorator before the decorated type, and it'll Auto-Wire everything for you.

Finally, we use a ControllerFactory very similar to the WindsorControllerFactory from the MVC Contrib project.

To reiterate: You don't have to use Castle Windsor to enable global error handling or logging in ASP.NET MVC. You can code it by hand as I've demonstrated in my previous posts, or you can use some other DI Container. The purpose of this post was simply to demonstrate one way to take it to the next level.


Monday, 07 December 2009 06:20:27 UTC

In a previous post I described how to enable global error handling in ASP.NET MVC applications. Although I spent some time talking about the importance of DRY, another major motivation for me was to enable Dependency Injection (DI) with exception handling so that I could log stack traces before letting ASP.NET MVC handle the exception.

With the ErrorHandlingControllerActionInvoker I described, we can inject any IExceptionFilter implementation. As an example I used HandleErrorAttribute, but obviously that doesn't log anything. Once again, it would be tempting to derive from HandleErrorAttribute and override its OnException method, but staying true to the Single Responsibility Principle as well as the Open/Closed Principle I rather prefer a Decorator:

public class LoggingExceptionFilter : IExceptionFilter
    private readonly IExceptionFilter filter;
    private readonly ILogWriter logWriter;
    public LoggingExceptionFilter(IExceptionFilter filter,
        ILogWriter logWriter)
        if (filter == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("filter");
        if (logWriter == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("logWriter");
        this.filter = filter;
        this.logWriter = logWriter;
    #region IExceptionFilter Members
    public void OnException(ExceptionContext filterContext)

The LoggingExceptionFilter shown above is unabridged production code. This is all it takes to bridge the gap between IExceptionFilter and some ILogWriter interface (replace with the logging framework of your choice). Notice how it simply logs the error and then passes on exception handling to the decorated IExceptionFilter.

Currently we use HandleErrorAttribute as the decorated filter so that behavior stays as expected.

c.ActionInvoker = 
    new ErrorHandlingControllerActionInvoker(
        new LoggingExceptionFilter(
            new HandleErrorAttribute(), logWriter));

This is not too different from before, except that a LoggingExceptionFilter now decorates the HandleErrorAttribute instance.

Page 68 of 74

"Our team wholeheartedly endorses Mark. His expert service provides tremendous value."
Hire me!