Microsoft Unity Dependency Injection Application Block Released

新技术 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:12:43 GMT

  Posted by Robert Bazinet on Apr 10, 2008 09:00 AM The Microsoft patterns & practices group

re: Enterprise Library 4: Now with more Peace Love and Rock n' Roll

scottdensmore — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:18:11 GMT

Hi Derek,

The new CTP available on CodePlex allows you to register extensions that will have the ability to add your own custom strategies and policies.

re: Enterprise Library 4: Now with more Peace Love and Rock n' Roll

derekgreer — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:41:07 GMT

Hey Scott. I can't wait to see both EntLib4 and Unity. As you know, the big thing that was always missing with Object Builder was the container. Sure, you could make your own that instanced the builder, locator, and lifetime container, but it would have been good to have this out of the box. Well, it sounds like we are going to finally be given a container.

One concern I have, however, is whether Unity is going to fully expose all of Object Builder's capabilities. Looking at the code snippet provided by Grigori, it doesn't look like it will since I see no methods for registering Strategies and Policies. Additionally, your team has also been describing it as a "Dependency Injection Container" which is consistent with the code snippet. I really hope that what your team delivers is a container which allows Object Builder to be used out of the box and not just a container for doing DI.

This leads to another issue I would like to bring up and that is the terminology that is being used to describe this container and Object Builder. Object Builder was always advertised as a “Dependency Injection Framework”, meaning that it itself wasn’t a DI container, but was rather a framework for building DI containers. The framework aspect was a good clarification that needed to be made, but what it was a framework for has always been described incorrectly IMHO. Object Builder is not merely for dependency injection. Moreover, it isn’t even limited to Inversion of Control. The best description of Object Builder is that it is an Object Factory Pipeline Framework. It can certainly be used for Dependency Injection, but it can also be used for other types of Inversion of Control (like registering events in CAB), or just as a plain ole Factory (which I wouldn’t consider to be true DI or IoC). If Unity is to be only for DI then this label is certainly valid, but I would like to request that it fully expose the object factory pipeline capabilities of Object Builder …. and that the descriptions of both be broadened to correctly identify what they truly are. I find it a bit ironic that the name “Dependency Injection” is being used to describe “Inversion of Control” containers given the inception of the name was for the exact opposite reason … too broad a name being given to too narrow a type of IoC.

- Derek

Links for Tuesday 5 February 2008

Richard's Rant — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:38:30 GMT

Windows 2008 and Vista SP1 released to Manufacturing . But it won't be available till March. It seems

Unity + EntLib = ?

Noticias externas — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:32:06 GMT

If you've been following Grigori Melnik's blog , you'll know a bit about Unity , the new

Unity + EntLib = ?

Tom Hollander's blog — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:03:17 GMT

If you've been following Grigori Melnik's blog , you'll know a bit about Unity , the new Dependency Injection