Can I pass constructor parameters to Unity's Resolve() method?

Question

I am using Microsoft's Unity for dependency injection and I want to do something like this:

IDataContext context = _unityContainer.Resolve<IDataContext>();
var repositoryA = _unityContainer.Resolve<IRepositoryA>(context); //Same instance of context
var repositoryB = _unityContainer.Resolve<IRepositoryB>(context); //Same instance of context

IDataContext context2 = _unityContainer.Resolve<IDataContext>(); //New instance
var repositoryA2 = _unityContainer.Resolve<IRepositoryA>(context2);

RepositoryA and RepositoryB both have a constructor that takes an IDataContext parameter, and I want Unity to initialize the repository with the context that I pass it. Also note that IDataContext is not registered with Unity (I don't want 3 instances of IDataContext).

Solution 1

As of today they have added this functionality:

It’s in the latest drop here:

http://unity.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/view/33899

Discussion on it here:

http://unity.codeplex.com/Thread/View.aspx?ThreadId=66434

Example:

container.Resolve<IFoo>(new ParameterOverrides<Foo> { { "name", "bar" }, { "address", 42 } });"

Solution 2

< 2 cents>

What if you later on decide to use a different service that requires more or less than just the context?

The problem with constructor parameters and IoC is that the parameters are ultimately tied to the concrete type being used, as opposed to being part of the contract that the service interface defines.

My suggestion would be that you either resolve the context as well, and I believe Unity should have a way for you to avoid constructing 3 instances of it, or you should consider a factory service that has a way for you to construct the object.

For instance, what if you later on decide to construct a repository that doesn't rely on a traditional database at all, but instead use an XML file to produce dummy-data for the test? How would you go about feeding the XML content to that constructor?

IoC is based around decoupling code, by tying in the type and semantics of the arguments to the concrete types, you really haven't done the decoupling correctly, there's still a dependency.

"This code can talk to any type of repository possibly, as long as it implements this interface.... Oh, and uses a data context".

Now, I know that other IoC containers have support for this, and I had it in my first version of my own as well, but in my opinion, it doesn't belong with the resolution step.

< /2 cents>

Solution 3

Thanks guys ... mine is similar to the post by "Exist". See below:

        IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer();
        container.LoadConfiguration();

        _activeDirectoryService = container.Resolve<IActiveDirectoryService>(new ResolverOverride[]
        {
            new ParameterOverride("activeDirectoryServer", "xyz.adserver.com")
        });

Solution 4

You can use InjectionConstructor / InjectionProperty / InjectionMethod depending on your Injection Architecture within the ResolvedParameter< T >("name") to get a instance of a pre-registered Object in the container.

In your case this Object must be registered with a Name, and for the same insance you need ContainerControlledLifeTimeManager() as the LifeTimeManager.

_unityContainer.RegisterType<IDataContext,DataContextA>("DataContextA", new ContainerControlledLifeTimeManager());
_unityContainer.RegisterType<IDataContext,DataContextB>("DataContextB");

  var repositoryA = _unityContainer.Resolve<IRepositoryA>(new InjectionConstructor(
new ResolvedParameter<IDataContext>("DataContextA")));

  var repositoryB = _unityContainer.Resolve<IRepositoryB>(new InjectionConstructor(
new ResolvedParameter<IDataContext>("DataContextA")));

  var repositoryA2 = _unityContainer.Resolve<IRepositoryA>(new InjectionConstructor(
new ResolvedParameter<IDataContext>("DataContextB")));

Solution 5

The very short answer is: no. Unity currently has no way to pass parameters into the constructor that aren't constant or injected, that I have been able to find. IMHO that's the single biggest thing it's missing, but I think it is by design rather than by omission.

As Jeff Fritz notes, you could in theory create a custom lifetime manager that knows which context instance to inject into various types, but that's a level of hard-coding which seems to obviate the purpose of using Unity or DI in the first place.

You could take a small step back from full DI and make your repository implementations responsible for establishing their own data contexts. The context instance can still be resolved from the container but the logic for deciding which one to use would have to go into the implementation of the repository. It's not as pure, certainly, but it would get rid of the problem.

View more solutions