Dependency Injection with Ninject, MVC 3 and using the Service Locator Pattern

Something that has been bugging me since I read an answer on another stackoverflow question (the precise one eludes me now) where a user stated something like "If you're calling the Service Locator, you're doing it wrong."

It was someone with a high reputation (in the hundred thousands, I think) so I tend to think this person might know what they're talking about. I've been using DI for my projects since I first started learning about it and how well it relates to Unit Testing and what not. It's something I'm fairly comfortable with now and I think I know what I'm doing.

However, there are a lot of places where I've been using the Service Locator to resolve dependencies in my project. Once prime example comes from my ModelBinder implementations.

Example of a typical model binder.

public class FileModelBinder : IModelBinder {
    public object BindModel(ControllerContext controllerContext,
                            ModelBindingContext bindingContext) {
        ValueProviderResult value = bindingContext.ValueProvider.GetValue("id");

        IDataContext db = Services.Current.GetService<IDataContext>();
        return db.Files.SingleOrDefault(i => i.Id == id.AttemptedValue);
    }
}

not a real implementation - just a quick example

Since the ModelBinder implementation requires a new instance when a Binder is first requested, it's impossible to use Dependency Injection on the constructor for this particular implementation.

It's this way in a lot of my classes. Another example is that of a Cache Expiration process that runs a method whenever a cache object expires in my website. I run a bunch of database calls and what not. There too I'm using a Service Locator to get the required dependency.

Another issue I had recently (that I posted a question on here about) was that all my controllers required an instance of IDataContext which I used DI for - but one action method required a different instance of IDataContext. Luckily Ninject came to the rescue with a named dependency. However, this felt like a kludge and not a real solution.

I thought I, at least, understood the concept of Separation of Concerns reasonably well but there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with how I understand Dependency Injection and the Service Locator Pattern - and I don't know what that is.

The way I currently understand it - and this could be wrong as well - is that, at least in MVC, the ControllerFactory looks for a Constructor for a Controller and calls the Service Locator itself to get the required dependencies and then passes them in. However, I can understand that not all classes and what not have a Factory to create them. So it seems to me that some Service Locator pattern is acceptable...but...

1. When is it not acceptable?
2. What sort of pattern should I be on the look out for when I should rethink how I'm using the Service Locator Pattern?
3. Is my ModelBinder implementation wrong? If so, what do I need to learn to fix it?
4. In another question along the lines of this one user Mark Seemann recommended an Abstract Factory - How does this relate?

I guess that's it - I can't really think of any other question to help my understanding but any extra information is greatly appreciated.

I understand that DI might not be the answer to everything and I might be going overboard in how I implement it, however, it seems to work the way I expect it to with Unit Testing and what not.

I'm not looking for code to fix my example implementation - I'm looking to learn, looking for an explanation to fix my flawed understanding.

I wish stackoverflow.com had the ability to save draft questions. I also hope whoever answers this question gets the appr开发者_运维技巧opriate amount of reputation for answering this question as I think I'm asking for a lot. Thanks, in advance.

---

Consider the following:

public class MyClass
{
  IMyInterface _myInterface;
  IMyOtherInterface _myOtherInterface;

  public MyClass(IMyInterface myInterface, IMyOtherInterface myOtherInterface)
  {
    // Foo

    _myInterface = myInterface;
    _myOtherInterface = myOtherInterface;
  }
}

With this design I am able to express the dependency requirements for my type. The type itself isn't responsible for knowing how to instantiate any of the dependencies, they are given to it (injected) by whatever resolving mechanism is used [typically an IoC container]. Whereas:

public class MyClass
{
  IMyInterface _myInterface;
  IMyOtherInterface _myOtherInterface;

  public MyClass()
  {
    // Bar

    _myInterface = ServiceLocator.Resolve<IMyInterface>();
    _myOtherInterface = ServiceLocator.Resolve<IMyOtherInterface>();
  }
}

Our class is now dependent on creating the specfic instances, but via delegation to a service locator. In this sense, Service Location can be considered an anti-pattern because you're not exposing dependencies, but you are allowing problems which can be caught through compilation to bubble up into runtime. (A good read is here). You hiding complexities.

The choice between one or the other really depends on what your building on top of and the services it provides. Typically if you are building an application from scratch, I would choose DI all the time. It improves maintainability, promotes modularity and makes testing types a whole lot easier. But, taking ASP.NET MVC3 as an example, you could easily implement SL as its baked into the design.

You can always go for a composite design where you could use IoC/DI with SL, much like using the Common Services Locator. You component parts could be wired up through DI, but exposed through SL. You could even throw composition into the mix and use something like the Managed Extensibility Framework (which itself supports DI, but can also be wired to other IoC containers or service locators). It's a big design choice to make, generally my recommendation would be for IoC/DI where possible.

Your specific design I wouldn't say is wrong. In this instance, your code is not responsible for creating an instance of the model binder itself, that's up to the framework so you have no control over that but your use of the service locator could probably be easily changed to access an IoC container. But the action of calling resolve on the IoC container...would you not consider that service location?

With an abstract factory pattern the factory is specialised at creating specific types. You don't register types for resolution, you essentially register an abstract factory and that builds any types that you may require. With a Service Locator it is designed to locate services and return those instances. Similar from an convention point of view, but very different in behaviour.