New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add spec test verifying that services maintain registration order #416

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 13, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
@halter73
Member

halter73 commented Jun 9, 2016

Start of work for #379

@davidfowl @muratg

@halter73

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@halter73

halter73 Jun 9, 2016

Member

Currently this passes with our default container. It fails as follows with Autofac

xUnit.net .NET CLI test runner (64-bit Desktop .NET win10-x64)
  Discovering: Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test
  Discovered:  Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test
  Starting:    Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test
    Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test.AutofacRegistrationTests.ServiceCollectionConfigurationIsRetainedInRootContainer [FAIL]
      System.TypeLoadException : Could not load type 'Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Extensions.ServiceCollectionExtensions' from assembly 'Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=adb9793829ddae60'.
      Stack Trace:
           at Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.OptionsServiceCollectionExtensions.AddOptions(IServiceCollection services)
        AutofacRegistrationTests.cs(131,0): at Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test.AutofacRegistrationTests.ServiceCollectionConfigurationIsRetainedInRootContainer()
    Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test.SpecificationTests.RegistrationOrderIsPreservedWhenServicesAreIEnumerableResolved [FAIL]
      Assert.Collection() Failure
      Error during comparison of item at index 0
      Inner exception: Assert.IsType() Failure
              Expected: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.Fakes.FakeOneMultipleService
              Actual:   Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.Fakes.FakeTwoMultipleService
      Stack Trace:
        C:\Users\shalter\dev\Universe\DependencyInjection\src\Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.Tests\DependencyInjectionSpecificationTests.cs(179,0): at Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.DependencyInjectionSpecificationTests.<>c.<RegistrationOrderIsPreservedWhenServicesAreIEnumerableResolved>b__30_0(IFakeMultipleService service)
        C:\Users\shalter\dev\Universe\DependencyInjection\src\Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.Tests\DependencyInjectionSpecificationTests.cs(178,0): at Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.DependencyInjectionSpecificationTests.RegistrationOrderIsPreservedWhenServicesAreIEnumerableResolved()
  Finished:    Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test
=== TEST EXECUTION SUMMARY ===
   Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test  Total: 66, Errors: 0, Failed: 2, Skipped: 0, Time: 1.097s
SUMMARY: Total: 1 targets, Passed: 0, Failed: 1.
Member

halter73 commented Jun 9, 2016

Currently this passes with our default container. It fails as follows with Autofac

xUnit.net .NET CLI test runner (64-bit Desktop .NET win10-x64)
  Discovering: Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test
  Discovered:  Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test
  Starting:    Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test
    Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test.AutofacRegistrationTests.ServiceCollectionConfigurationIsRetainedInRootContainer [FAIL]
      System.TypeLoadException : Could not load type 'Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Extensions.ServiceCollectionExtensions' from assembly 'Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=adb9793829ddae60'.
      Stack Trace:
           at Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.OptionsServiceCollectionExtensions.AddOptions(IServiceCollection services)
        AutofacRegistrationTests.cs(131,0): at Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test.AutofacRegistrationTests.ServiceCollectionConfigurationIsRetainedInRootContainer()
    Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test.SpecificationTests.RegistrationOrderIsPreservedWhenServicesAreIEnumerableResolved [FAIL]
      Assert.Collection() Failure
      Error during comparison of item at index 0
      Inner exception: Assert.IsType() Failure
              Expected: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.Fakes.FakeOneMultipleService
              Actual:   Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.Fakes.FakeTwoMultipleService
      Stack Trace:
        C:\Users\shalter\dev\Universe\DependencyInjection\src\Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.Tests\DependencyInjectionSpecificationTests.cs(179,0): at Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.DependencyInjectionSpecificationTests.<>c.<RegistrationOrderIsPreservedWhenServicesAreIEnumerableResolved>b__30_0(IFakeMultipleService service)
        C:\Users\shalter\dev\Universe\DependencyInjection\src\Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.Tests\DependencyInjectionSpecificationTests.cs(178,0): at Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Specification.DependencyInjectionSpecificationTests.RegistrationOrderIsPreservedWhenServicesAreIEnumerableResolved()
  Finished:    Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test
=== TEST EXECUTION SUMMARY ===
   Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Test  Total: 66, Errors: 0, Failed: 2, Skipped: 0, Time: 1.097s
SUMMARY: Total: 1 targets, Passed: 0, Failed: 1.
@halter73

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@halter73

halter73 Jun 9, 2016

Member

We could test this more thoroughly by ensuring that things work the same way with constructor injection as it does when GetService is called. We could also try registering with Funcs, instances, scoped services.

I don't think it's necessary to cover that much however. If we did, we should change every specification test to ensure that changing these hopefully orthogonal variables doesn't cause them to fail.

Member

halter73 commented Jun 9, 2016

We could test this more thoroughly by ensuring that things work the same way with constructor injection as it does when GetService is called. We could also try registering with Funcs, instances, scoped services.

I don't think it's necessary to cover that much however. If we did, we should change every specification test to ensure that changing these hopefully orthogonal variables doesn't cause them to fail.

@muratg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@muratg

muratg Jun 9, 2016

Member

This looks good to me so far.

Member

muratg commented Jun 9, 2016

This looks good to me so far.

@davidfowl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidfowl
Member

davidfowl commented Jun 11, 2016

:shipit:

@@ -158,6 +158,33 @@ public void MultipleServiceCanBeIEnumerableResolved()
}
[Fact]
public void RegistrationOrderIsPreservedWhenServicesAreIEnumerableResolved()

This comment has been minimized.

@pranavkm

pranavkm Jun 11, 2016

Member

There's another expectation we have with our DI system viz when requesting a single service, the most recently registered service wins. Could you add a test for that scenario as well?

@pranavkm

pranavkm Jun 11, 2016

Member

There's another expectation we have with our DI system viz when requesting a single service, the most recently registered service wins. Could you add a test for that scenario as well?

This comment has been minimized.

@halter73

halter73 Jun 13, 2016

Member

This is one of the expectations that I point out is already tested in #379 (comment)

  • If a single instance is requested using GetRequiredService(), the container is expected to return the last registration for T, in case there are multiple registrations for T.
@halter73

halter73 Jun 13, 2016

Member

This is one of the expectations that I point out is already tested in #379 (comment)

  • If a single instance is requested using GetRequiredService(), the container is expected to return the last registration for T, in case there are multiple registrations for T.
@dadhi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dadhi

dadhi Jun 11, 2016

Contributor

May be offtop, but due the multiple asserts in spec tests, it would be good to add assert messages at least, to quickly indicate what's failing. For instance, in DisposingScopeDisposesService, too many things can fail, and it is hard to find what without debug.

Contributor

dadhi commented Jun 11, 2016

May be offtop, but due the multiple asserts in spec tests, it would be good to add assert messages at least, to quickly indicate what's failing. For instance, in DisposingScopeDisposesService, too many things can fail, and it is hard to find what without debug.

@pranavkm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pranavkm
Member

pranavkm commented Jun 13, 2016

:shipit:

@halter73 halter73 merged commit 6b94c82 into dev Jun 13, 2016

0 of 2 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr Waiting for AppVeyor build to complete
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build is in progress
Details

@halter73 halter73 deleted the halter73/specific-order branch Jun 13, 2016

var provider = CreateServiceProvider(collection);
collection.Reverse();

This comment has been minimized.

@khellang

khellang Jun 16, 2016

Contributor

Is this really reversing the collection? ServiceCollection only implements IList<ServiceDescriptor> and AFAIK that doesn't have a Reverse method.

That means this probably is the Enumerable.Reverse LINQ method, which doesn't alter the original source, but returns a new IEnumerable<ServiceDescriptor>.

@khellang

khellang Jun 16, 2016

Contributor

Is this really reversing the collection? ServiceCollection only implements IList<ServiceDescriptor> and AFAIK that doesn't have a Reverse method.

That means this probably is the Enumerable.Reverse LINQ method, which doesn't alter the original source, but returns a new IEnumerable<ServiceDescriptor>.

This comment has been minimized.

@davidfowl

davidfowl Jun 16, 2016

Member

Good catch!

@davidfowl

davidfowl Jun 16, 2016

Member

Good catch!

This comment has been minimized.

@pranavkm

pranavkm Jun 16, 2016

Member

It's calling List<T>.Reverse since ServiceCollection : List<ServiceDescriptor>. This should be fine.

@pranavkm

pranavkm Jun 16, 2016

Member

It's calling List<T>.Reverse since ServiceCollection : List<ServiceDescriptor>. This should be fine.

This comment has been minimized.

@pranavkm

This comment has been minimized.

@pranavkm

pranavkm Jun 16, 2016

Member

Filed #419 to rename the one in the test specification.

@pranavkm

pranavkm Jun 16, 2016

Member

Filed #419 to rename the one in the test specification.

@alexmg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexmg

alexmg Jun 30, 2016

Meeting this requirement is proving to be a real PITA. We support registration sources being added to the container during the registration process and add several built-in ones by default as well. These registration sources can dynamically provide registrations at runtime if they are able to. Autofac capabilities such as resolving IEnumerable<T>, Func<T>, Meta<T, TMetadata>, Owned<T> and combinations thereof (e.g. IEnumerable<Func<Owned<T>>>) actually utilise this functionality internally.

The source registrations could come from other registration sources, parent lifetime scopes, or even other registration sources in parent lifetime scopes. A user can also add new registrations or registration sources while creating a new lifetime scope. Combine this with the fact that the user can choose whether or not a particular registration should become the default for when a single instance is requested and the permutations are significant. Just managing the default registration across the lifetime scopes and registration sources is a challenge in itself.

Determining what order a registration was added to the container only works within a limit subset of the possible types of registrations. After that the behaviour is too unpredictable for a user to make any sense out of, and in most cases is simply out of their and our control. We can't predict exactly what registrations we might be able to piece together based on explicit user registrations combined with the built-in and user-defined registration sources.

At this stage simply abandoning the adaptor altogether is looking like a real possibility. You have forced every container to behave exactly the same as your own even though it only supports a minimal set of behaviour. That sounds like it should make things easier but it actually doesn't when you start to consider the more advanced capabilities that other containers support. Adding more features to your container will also make the situation worse and further reduce the number of containers that can conform. The overarching issue is trying to make all containers behave exactly the same regardless of their functionality.

I got the impression from @halter73 in his comment above (#379 (comment)) that he had already figured out that forcing a connection between the order a registration is added and what happens at the time of resolution was indeed asking too much. You even had an issue raised around this very problem (aspnet/Options#150) after regressing from a better position in earlier versions of ASP.NET Core and the original MVC and Web API frameworks. The disappointing part is that this was ignored simply to meet the ship date. It really annoyed me seeing the pressure that people were putting on the team to release, instead of worrying about whether or not what was going to be released would be the best foundation possible for the next decade of .NET.

alexmg commented Jun 30, 2016

Meeting this requirement is proving to be a real PITA. We support registration sources being added to the container during the registration process and add several built-in ones by default as well. These registration sources can dynamically provide registrations at runtime if they are able to. Autofac capabilities such as resolving IEnumerable<T>, Func<T>, Meta<T, TMetadata>, Owned<T> and combinations thereof (e.g. IEnumerable<Func<Owned<T>>>) actually utilise this functionality internally.

The source registrations could come from other registration sources, parent lifetime scopes, or even other registration sources in parent lifetime scopes. A user can also add new registrations or registration sources while creating a new lifetime scope. Combine this with the fact that the user can choose whether or not a particular registration should become the default for when a single instance is requested and the permutations are significant. Just managing the default registration across the lifetime scopes and registration sources is a challenge in itself.

Determining what order a registration was added to the container only works within a limit subset of the possible types of registrations. After that the behaviour is too unpredictable for a user to make any sense out of, and in most cases is simply out of their and our control. We can't predict exactly what registrations we might be able to piece together based on explicit user registrations combined with the built-in and user-defined registration sources.

At this stage simply abandoning the adaptor altogether is looking like a real possibility. You have forced every container to behave exactly the same as your own even though it only supports a minimal set of behaviour. That sounds like it should make things easier but it actually doesn't when you start to consider the more advanced capabilities that other containers support. Adding more features to your container will also make the situation worse and further reduce the number of containers that can conform. The overarching issue is trying to make all containers behave exactly the same regardless of their functionality.

I got the impression from @halter73 in his comment above (#379 (comment)) that he had already figured out that forcing a connection between the order a registration is added and what happens at the time of resolution was indeed asking too much. You even had an issue raised around this very problem (aspnet/Options#150) after regressing from a better position in earlier versions of ASP.NET Core and the original MVC and Web API frameworks. The disappointing part is that this was ignored simply to meet the ship date. It really annoyed me seeing the pressure that people were putting on the team to release, instead of worrying about whether or not what was going to be released would be the best foundation possible for the next decade of .NET.

@seesharper

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@seesharper

seesharper Jun 30, 2016

Contributor

I am looking at the exact same thing for LightInject and while doable, this is going to hurt, a LOT.

More and more expected behaviour is being baked into the default implementation and that is also part of the contract that every adapter needs to confirm to.

The very fact that not even Autofac can meet the expectations here, proves more than anything that this abstraction is going down the wrong path.

We had a similar discussion in this issue.
#406

Contributor

seesharper commented Jun 30, 2016

I am looking at the exact same thing for LightInject and while doable, this is going to hurt, a LOT.

More and more expected behaviour is being baked into the default implementation and that is also part of the contract that every adapter needs to confirm to.

The very fact that not even Autofac can meet the expectations here, proves more than anything that this abstraction is going down the wrong path.

We had a similar discussion in this issue.
#406

@davidfowl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidfowl

davidfowl Jul 1, 2016

Member

Ok there's been sufficient feedback from DI authors about this that I'd like to discuss some alternatives (purely for discussions sake, not committing to anything yet). If we removed all ability to replace the DI container for ASP.NET Core all up, what would 3rd party DI containers do instead? Would we basically resort to having container specific composite roots? One for SignalR, one for MVC, one for middleware without the ability to interop with any of the services (SimpleInject has a CrossWire function to make this work)?

Member

davidfowl commented Jul 1, 2016

Ok there's been sufficient feedback from DI authors about this that I'd like to discuss some alternatives (purely for discussions sake, not committing to anything yet). If we removed all ability to replace the DI container for ASP.NET Core all up, what would 3rd party DI containers do instead? Would we basically resort to having container specific composite roots? One for SignalR, one for MVC, one for middleware without the ability to interop with any of the services (SimpleInject has a CrossWire function to make this work)?

@aL3891

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aL3891

aL3891 Jul 1, 2016

Is it really necessary to remove DI replacement altogether though? I assume this requirement is in place to prevent the app behavior from changing when you change DI system, but if I use say, Autofac, I think it would be reasonable for Autofacs rules to apply here, even if that changes the behavior of my app.

Maybe its worth reiterating why this specific requirement is in place and what the implications would be if it was removed?

aL3891 commented Jul 1, 2016

Is it really necessary to remove DI replacement altogether though? I assume this requirement is in place to prevent the app behavior from changing when you change DI system, but if I use say, Autofac, I think it would be reasonable for Autofacs rules to apply here, even if that changes the behavior of my app.

Maybe its worth reiterating why this specific requirement is in place and what the implications would be if it was removed?

@cottsak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cottsak

cottsak Jul 1, 2016

@davidfowl This might be a dumb question, but for the folks like me who don't know the backstory:

  • Why is the framework trying to impose implementation behaviour on third party implementers in the first place? Isn't the point of an interface to specify a contract and not the implementation?
  • [maybe answered by above] Why, if internally Core/aspnet uses basic DI principals like ctor/prop injection, does it even matter how the built-in container behaves? Surely I should be able to manually compose everything at the root and not use a container completely if I want to right?
  • Why are the basic interfaces reaching so much further than they did in the previous generation? (ie, why more than just basic Resolve behaviour?)

cottsak commented Jul 1, 2016

@davidfowl This might be a dumb question, but for the folks like me who don't know the backstory:

  • Why is the framework trying to impose implementation behaviour on third party implementers in the first place? Isn't the point of an interface to specify a contract and not the implementation?
  • [maybe answered by above] Why, if internally Core/aspnet uses basic DI principals like ctor/prop injection, does it even matter how the built-in container behaves? Surely I should be able to manually compose everything at the root and not use a container completely if I want to right?
  • Why are the basic interfaces reaching so much further than they did in the previous generation? (ie, why more than just basic Resolve behaviour?)
@alexmg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexmg

alexmg Jul 1, 2016

@davidfowl I’m really pleased that you are joining the discussion and keeping an open mind. No doubt the community will see that as a positive thing.

I think the problem is broader than just whether or not the container is replaced in ASP.NET Core, as general availability of the DI abstraction and the associated default container implementation has spread the issue further. The pain we are feeling here with ASP.NET Core is going to be felt in other places too, as the DI abstraction and default container (this needs a cool name) were written to be general purpose and reusable.

For example, I noticed Microsoft Orleans already started using the new abstraction for its DI support. They aren’t currently falling back to the default container when no service provider is returned and are instead just using Activator.CreateInstance. With the specification describing the expected behaviour of a service provider implementation, there is nothing stopping them from adjusting their internal behaviour to match that of the specification, or to simply start using the default container and start getting that behaviour regardless. At that point all other containers must conform or they can’t work correctly with Orleans either.

If they decided not to add the appropriate hook for grain activation outside of the DI abstraction, then non-conforming containers are simply locked out. Based on their current usage of the service provider even a container that had limited conformance would almost certainly meet their needs, but that doesn’t matter because they are free to expand their usage at any time. Using the abstraction seems like overkill for their current requirements, but because it’s available and appears to be a simple way of getting broad container support for basically no effort, the temptation to use it is just too great. If that’s already happening inside Microsoft there is definitely no chance of stopping this in the broader community. This is a pattern that I suspect will continue to repeat itself.

When the conforming container issue was first raised you made it clear that the approach wasn’t going to change, so we strapped ourselves in for the ride, figuring that would be better than being left behind. Even with the current situation my views haven’t really changed: I don’t like the conforming container, but I also don’t want Autofac to be one of those containers locked out every time someone decides to use the abstraction, be it with ASP.NET Core or any other framework.

Unless you are willing to make a radical shift immediately after RTM then options are a bit limited. Because the current DI packages encourage all services to be registered in a single container through a single registration API, even if ASP.NET Core takes a different approach with separate registrations and containers (with cross wiring as @dotnetjunkie describes it), how would others be stopped from using what is already available? It’s definitely a difficult situation. I’m not sure how many containers have actually attempted to create an adaptor at this stage, and whether or not they have actually run through the specification tests. Regardless of what happens next, working hard on reducing the number of requirements in the specification would be a good thing.

alexmg commented Jul 1, 2016

@davidfowl I’m really pleased that you are joining the discussion and keeping an open mind. No doubt the community will see that as a positive thing.

I think the problem is broader than just whether or not the container is replaced in ASP.NET Core, as general availability of the DI abstraction and the associated default container implementation has spread the issue further. The pain we are feeling here with ASP.NET Core is going to be felt in other places too, as the DI abstraction and default container (this needs a cool name) were written to be general purpose and reusable.

For example, I noticed Microsoft Orleans already started using the new abstraction for its DI support. They aren’t currently falling back to the default container when no service provider is returned and are instead just using Activator.CreateInstance. With the specification describing the expected behaviour of a service provider implementation, there is nothing stopping them from adjusting their internal behaviour to match that of the specification, or to simply start using the default container and start getting that behaviour regardless. At that point all other containers must conform or they can’t work correctly with Orleans either.

If they decided not to add the appropriate hook for grain activation outside of the DI abstraction, then non-conforming containers are simply locked out. Based on their current usage of the service provider even a container that had limited conformance would almost certainly meet their needs, but that doesn’t matter because they are free to expand their usage at any time. Using the abstraction seems like overkill for their current requirements, but because it’s available and appears to be a simple way of getting broad container support for basically no effort, the temptation to use it is just too great. If that’s already happening inside Microsoft there is definitely no chance of stopping this in the broader community. This is a pattern that I suspect will continue to repeat itself.

When the conforming container issue was first raised you made it clear that the approach wasn’t going to change, so we strapped ourselves in for the ride, figuring that would be better than being left behind. Even with the current situation my views haven’t really changed: I don’t like the conforming container, but I also don’t want Autofac to be one of those containers locked out every time someone decides to use the abstraction, be it with ASP.NET Core or any other framework.

Unless you are willing to make a radical shift immediately after RTM then options are a bit limited. Because the current DI packages encourage all services to be registered in a single container through a single registration API, even if ASP.NET Core takes a different approach with separate registrations and containers (with cross wiring as @dotnetjunkie describes it), how would others be stopped from using what is already available? It’s definitely a difficult situation. I’m not sure how many containers have actually attempted to create an adaptor at this stage, and whether or not they have actually run through the specification tests. Regardless of what happens next, working hard on reducing the number of requirements in the specification would be a good thing.

@alexmg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexmg

alexmg Jul 1, 2016

@cottsak With previous DI interfaces such as the dependency resolver interfaces in MVC and Web API, the frameworks weren’t using a container internally as ASP.NET Core is now. When a service was required the framework would first check the container for an implementation, and if one wasn’t available, would fall back to a hard coded default service. Now all services are resolved from either the default container or the 3rd party container. That means that the services registered through the registration API that is part of the new DI abstraction, are passed over to the 3rd party container to be registered with it (currently 145 services in a basic Web API application).

Unfortunately, that means that any implicit behaviours the default container infers from the registrations must be matched in the 3rd party container. For example, a subsequent registration for a service will replace any existing ones as the default. Also, any behaviour that the default container has needs to be matched by the 3rd party container because the framework is now relying on that behaviour internally, regardless of whether the default or 3rd party container is being used. Each behaviour that ASP.NET Core relied on internally from its own container bled directly through the contract and became part of the specification.

It's worth noting that the previous DI interfaces also had their problems, but because there was no shared registration API or default container, they were fewer than what we are seeing now. I remember the dependency resolver interface in Web API added support for scoping, which meant that the containers didn't have to try and find their own hooks for the creation and release of scopes, but then they decided to start caching services returned from the container breaking the user configured scoping of the services being resolved.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit for those that are just joining the thread now.

alexmg commented Jul 1, 2016

@cottsak With previous DI interfaces such as the dependency resolver interfaces in MVC and Web API, the frameworks weren’t using a container internally as ASP.NET Core is now. When a service was required the framework would first check the container for an implementation, and if one wasn’t available, would fall back to a hard coded default service. Now all services are resolved from either the default container or the 3rd party container. That means that the services registered through the registration API that is part of the new DI abstraction, are passed over to the 3rd party container to be registered with it (currently 145 services in a basic Web API application).

Unfortunately, that means that any implicit behaviours the default container infers from the registrations must be matched in the 3rd party container. For example, a subsequent registration for a service will replace any existing ones as the default. Also, any behaviour that the default container has needs to be matched by the 3rd party container because the framework is now relying on that behaviour internally, regardless of whether the default or 3rd party container is being used. Each behaviour that ASP.NET Core relied on internally from its own container bled directly through the contract and became part of the specification.

It's worth noting that the previous DI interfaces also had their problems, but because there was no shared registration API or default container, they were fewer than what we are seeing now. I remember the dependency resolver interface in Web API added support for scoping, which meant that the containers didn't have to try and find their own hooks for the creation and release of scopes, but then they decided to start caching services returned from the container breaking the user configured scoping of the services being resolved.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit for those that are just joining the thread now.

@cottsak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cottsak

cottsak Jul 1, 2016

@alexmg Yeh that does help a bit.

So the "no MS container" and default impls really made the 3rd party containers possible in the first gen aspnet. Is that right?

And now the built in container is leaking it's internal behaviour outside the interface contracts due to the internal wiring expectations, forcing all 3rd parties to adhere to this behaviour too. Problem is that this internal behaviour is incompatible with many features of different 3rd party containers. Am I getting it right?

cottsak commented Jul 1, 2016

@alexmg Yeh that does help a bit.

So the "no MS container" and default impls really made the 3rd party containers possible in the first gen aspnet. Is that right?

And now the built in container is leaking it's internal behaviour outside the interface contracts due to the internal wiring expectations, forcing all 3rd parties to adhere to this behaviour too. Problem is that this internal behaviour is incompatible with many features of different 3rd party containers. Am I getting it right?

@alexmg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexmg

alexmg Jul 1, 2016

@cottsak That's essentially it. The way default services were handled and the absence of a default container certainly made it easier for a container to conform with what was required from the dependency resolver interfaces. There were also less assumptions about what was returned via that interface. For example, ordering was made explicit were required, such as through the Order property on filters. This made it easier in the earlier generation frameworks. The expectation of common behaviour across all containers, with the internal container driving those expectations, is now making it harder.

alexmg commented Jul 1, 2016

@cottsak That's essentially it. The way default services were handled and the absence of a default container certainly made it easier for a container to conform with what was required from the dependency resolver interfaces. There were also less assumptions about what was returned via that interface. For example, ordering was made explicit were required, such as through the Order property on filters. This made it easier in the earlier generation frameworks. The expectation of common behaviour across all containers, with the internal container driving those expectations, is now making it harder.

@davidfowl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidfowl

davidfowl Jul 1, 2016

Member

@davidfowl This might be a dumb question, but for the folks like me who don't know the backstory:

Why is the framework trying to impose implementation behavior on third party implementers in the first place? Isn't the point of an interface to specify a contract and not the implementation?

Because the way we chose to replace the container was by making sure there is a single container for both framework and application, this solves some problems we've had in the past. See http://forums.asp.net/post/5708079.aspx for more details (though we did drop container chaining because it proved too hard to implement everywhere).

[maybe answered by above] Why, if internally Core/aspnet uses basic DI principals like ctor/prop injection, does it even matter how the built-in container behaves? Surely I should be able to manually compose everything at the root and not use a container completely if I want to right?

We do ctor injection where possible but that's the tip of the iceberg. What gets injected and how we expect that to behave is a different story, for e.g.:

  • Open generics
  • IEnumerable<T> injection (preserving the order)
  • The ability to override services described in the service collection with ones registered later
  • Ability to optionally resolve services

Why are the basic interfaces reaching so much further than they did in the previous generation? (ie, why more than just basic Resolve behavior?)

Calling out the specific behaviors and what components use them would make it easy to see why things were needed. The spec tests try to enumerate the things we rely on.

This happened organically and we didn't do enough to restrict ourselves really. Throughout the course of the 3 years developing this product we drastically changed the design of the DI system.

@aL3891 It doesn't need to be removed, but replacing it means you pass the DI spec tests. One of the main complaints is that container authors could choose to integrate in different ways other than conforming to our entire spec (which is what simple injector does). The downside is that it's a much rougher experience when you want to get services that the framework provides.

Because the current DI packages encourage all services to be registered in a single container through a single registration API

I absolutely disagree that we force a registration API on you or that you are unable to take advantage of container specific behavior. That's just untrue. What we have at the lowest level is metadata that describes service bindings (you know this, you own the autofac adapter...). This is the one part of the conforming container argument that isn't right. You can use the container API to do all of the wire up and get the container specific behavior and services (like ILifetimeScope injected into your classes for autofac). The problem is the other requirements that are a mismatch for some containers because it may conflict with other behavior...

Regardless of what happens next, working hard on reducing the number of requirements in the specification would be a good thing.

Right, we're not going to move away from having this library or built in DI in ASP.NET because it's actually goodness. The way SimpleInjector wants to interop is very different and I'm mostly asking if other DI authors want to take that approach.

My opinion is that people won't use 3rd party containers if the integration isn't seamless and I find that approach less than ideal so here we are discussing alternatives...

Member

davidfowl commented Jul 1, 2016

@davidfowl This might be a dumb question, but for the folks like me who don't know the backstory:

Why is the framework trying to impose implementation behavior on third party implementers in the first place? Isn't the point of an interface to specify a contract and not the implementation?

Because the way we chose to replace the container was by making sure there is a single container for both framework and application, this solves some problems we've had in the past. See http://forums.asp.net/post/5708079.aspx for more details (though we did drop container chaining because it proved too hard to implement everywhere).

[maybe answered by above] Why, if internally Core/aspnet uses basic DI principals like ctor/prop injection, does it even matter how the built-in container behaves? Surely I should be able to manually compose everything at the root and not use a container completely if I want to right?

We do ctor injection where possible but that's the tip of the iceberg. What gets injected and how we expect that to behave is a different story, for e.g.:

  • Open generics
  • IEnumerable<T> injection (preserving the order)
  • The ability to override services described in the service collection with ones registered later
  • Ability to optionally resolve services

Why are the basic interfaces reaching so much further than they did in the previous generation? (ie, why more than just basic Resolve behavior?)

Calling out the specific behaviors and what components use them would make it easy to see why things were needed. The spec tests try to enumerate the things we rely on.

This happened organically and we didn't do enough to restrict ourselves really. Throughout the course of the 3 years developing this product we drastically changed the design of the DI system.

@aL3891 It doesn't need to be removed, but replacing it means you pass the DI spec tests. One of the main complaints is that container authors could choose to integrate in different ways other than conforming to our entire spec (which is what simple injector does). The downside is that it's a much rougher experience when you want to get services that the framework provides.

Because the current DI packages encourage all services to be registered in a single container through a single registration API

I absolutely disagree that we force a registration API on you or that you are unable to take advantage of container specific behavior. That's just untrue. What we have at the lowest level is metadata that describes service bindings (you know this, you own the autofac adapter...). This is the one part of the conforming container argument that isn't right. You can use the container API to do all of the wire up and get the container specific behavior and services (like ILifetimeScope injected into your classes for autofac). The problem is the other requirements that are a mismatch for some containers because it may conflict with other behavior...

Regardless of what happens next, working hard on reducing the number of requirements in the specification would be a good thing.

Right, we're not going to move away from having this library or built in DI in ASP.NET because it's actually goodness. The way SimpleInjector wants to interop is very different and I'm mostly asking if other DI authors want to take that approach.

My opinion is that people won't use 3rd party containers if the integration isn't seamless and I find that approach less than ideal so here we are discussing alternatives...

@alexmg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexmg

alexmg Jul 1, 2016

@davidfowl

I absolutely disagree that we force a registration API on you or that you are unable to take advantage of container specific behavior.

I actually said, "the current DI packages encourage all services to be registered in a single container through a single registration API". I don't disagree at all that it's possible to use the Autofac registration API directly for registering your own services. This is exactly what I have been doing and putting in sample code to help reinforce the fact that it is indeed possible and not a constraint. The point was more about the fact that your registration API is what people are seeing most, and when using that they don't get the full benefit of what Autofac has to offer, such as adding a registration and allowing the existing default service to be preserved.

We do ctor injection where possible but that's the tip of the iceberg. What gets injected and how we expect that to behave is a different story

It is these expected behaviours that are causing the issues for containers attempting to build adaptors. In our case the expectation that services returned via IEnumerable are always in the order they were registered. A particular issue when those services aren't registered explicitly. In aspnet/Options#150 it's the fact that we aren't behaving exactly the same as your internal container that is causing headaches. The most concerning thing was that you decided not to fix it using approaches from the past that were know to work, and instead added more conformance requirements for every other container to meet. No doubt a decision based mostly on meeting a ship date (not something I'm holding you personally responsible for BTW).

Right, we're not going to move away from having this library or built in DI in ASP.NET because it's actually goodness. The way SimpleInjector wants to interop is very different and I'm mostly asking if other DI authors want to take that approach.

My opinion is that people won't use 3rd party containers if the integration isn't seamless and I find that approach less than ideal so here we are discussing alternatives...

I mentioned above that we want to work with the current system because ASP.NET Core won't be the only framework using this abstraction. There won't be any alternatives unless all frameworks using the abstraction are some how forced to allow for such an alternative. I'm not sure at the moment how that could be achieved starting from where things stand now.

I share the same concern about seamless integration and that's why I suggested making the specification easier to conform to would be a good starting point. That definitely won't keep everyone happy from a design principles perspective but it's better than doing nothing and having good containers drop out of the ecosystem, or forcing users to switch to a different container when using a framework other than ASP.NET Core.

alexmg commented Jul 1, 2016

@davidfowl

I absolutely disagree that we force a registration API on you or that you are unable to take advantage of container specific behavior.

I actually said, "the current DI packages encourage all services to be registered in a single container through a single registration API". I don't disagree at all that it's possible to use the Autofac registration API directly for registering your own services. This is exactly what I have been doing and putting in sample code to help reinforce the fact that it is indeed possible and not a constraint. The point was more about the fact that your registration API is what people are seeing most, and when using that they don't get the full benefit of what Autofac has to offer, such as adding a registration and allowing the existing default service to be preserved.

We do ctor injection where possible but that's the tip of the iceberg. What gets injected and how we expect that to behave is a different story

It is these expected behaviours that are causing the issues for containers attempting to build adaptors. In our case the expectation that services returned via IEnumerable are always in the order they were registered. A particular issue when those services aren't registered explicitly. In aspnet/Options#150 it's the fact that we aren't behaving exactly the same as your internal container that is causing headaches. The most concerning thing was that you decided not to fix it using approaches from the past that were know to work, and instead added more conformance requirements for every other container to meet. No doubt a decision based mostly on meeting a ship date (not something I'm holding you personally responsible for BTW).

Right, we're not going to move away from having this library or built in DI in ASP.NET because it's actually goodness. The way SimpleInjector wants to interop is very different and I'm mostly asking if other DI authors want to take that approach.

My opinion is that people won't use 3rd party containers if the integration isn't seamless and I find that approach less than ideal so here we are discussing alternatives...

I mentioned above that we want to work with the current system because ASP.NET Core won't be the only framework using this abstraction. There won't be any alternatives unless all frameworks using the abstraction are some how forced to allow for such an alternative. I'm not sure at the moment how that could be achieved starting from where things stand now.

I share the same concern about seamless integration and that's why I suggested making the specification easier to conform to would be a good starting point. That definitely won't keep everyone happy from a design principles perspective but it's better than doing nothing and having good containers drop out of the ecosystem, or forcing users to switch to a different container when using a framework other than ASP.NET Core.

@aL3891

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aL3891

aL3891 Jul 1, 2016

As a consumer I actually do like the abstractions for DI in general. I love Autofac, especially the dynamic stuff where you can do things like generate an interface implementation on the fly, that's super powerful and I've used it a lot. But a lot of times registration is also a lot simpler and advanced DI frameworks like Autofac can be a lot to take in. I see a lot of value in being able to get up quickly and be able to switch out the DI for a more advanced one without going though the motions of changing all the registration code.
As long as there is a way to drop down to the raw container and do advanced configuration i'm happy.

That said, i do think these implicit requirements are a bit strong. It feels like enforcing a very strict behavior to achieve something more general, like that a previously registered component is replaced by one registered later. (I don't know all the details though)

For me at least it would be ok if the app would potentially behave a little different when switching DI if that also meant I had more control. To me it seems like if things end up in the wrong order in a way that causes a problem, that's up to me to solve with my registration code. There might be times where people actually do want to change that order for what ever reason.

So tl;dr; I'm in favor of dropping the hard requirements on certain behavior and let the app sort that out if it becomes a problem (possibly using the DI systems own api). Documenting the order dependent cases would also go a long way.

aL3891 commented Jul 1, 2016

As a consumer I actually do like the abstractions for DI in general. I love Autofac, especially the dynamic stuff where you can do things like generate an interface implementation on the fly, that's super powerful and I've used it a lot. But a lot of times registration is also a lot simpler and advanced DI frameworks like Autofac can be a lot to take in. I see a lot of value in being able to get up quickly and be able to switch out the DI for a more advanced one without going though the motions of changing all the registration code.
As long as there is a way to drop down to the raw container and do advanced configuration i'm happy.

That said, i do think these implicit requirements are a bit strong. It feels like enforcing a very strict behavior to achieve something more general, like that a previously registered component is replaced by one registered later. (I don't know all the details though)

For me at least it would be ok if the app would potentially behave a little different when switching DI if that also meant I had more control. To me it seems like if things end up in the wrong order in a way that causes a problem, that's up to me to solve with my registration code. There might be times where people actually do want to change that order for what ever reason.

So tl;dr; I'm in favor of dropping the hard requirements on certain behavior and let the app sort that out if it becomes a problem (possibly using the DI systems own api). Documenting the order dependent cases would also go a long way.

@halter73

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@halter73

halter73 Jul 1, 2016

Member

I agree that we should make the specification as easy as possible to conform to. There is a balance we have to strike though. Even though framework code shouldn't need to rely on esoteric IoC features that would create undue burdens in third-party containers to support, some things are just too good to give up. @davidfowl mentioned a few such as open generics and IEnumerable<T> injection.

ASP.NET Core (or Project K) has required IEnumerable<T> injection from day one, but the order preservation requirement was added in the final hour, and this has understandably caused a lot of frustration. I think its last minute addition has caused the requirement to get an undeserved bad rap. Order preservation is genuinely useful. It allows for simpler framework code that is easier to maintain. At the point that IEnumerable<T> injection needs to be supported at all, I don't think order preservation is too much more to ask.

I already brought this up in autofac/Autofac#755, but it seems to me that the reason that it is hard for Autofac to preserve order is because it also needs to support the older requirement of overriding services described in the service collection with ones registered later. IMHO this older requirement is far less important.

I don't see any reason for a framework to resolve the same service type singulalry and via IEnumerable<T>. It should be possible for our ServiceCollection registration methods to remove previous registrations of singular service types. Containers shouldn't need to concern themselves with which ISingularService to resolve, because Populate should never need to be called with an IServiceCollection containing multiple ISingularService registrations. If an app decides to then register a replacement for ISingularService directly with a third-party container, it's up to the app author to know how to do it in the right way.

I'll admit that I don't entirely understand how registrations sources make it more difficult for Autofac to meet the ordering requirement as brought up several times in autofac/Autofac#755. It seems to me at the point the IEnumerable<T> registration source is handling the the service resolution (as it would need to be to support the older non-ordered IEnumerable<T> requiremnt right?), shouldn't the IEnumerable<T> registration source have the ultimate say about how the IEnumerable<T> is ordered? This seems to be the case considering that ContainerBuilder.Populate(services.Reverse()); workaround well ... works. This also shows how little ASP.NET actually relies on the service replacement requirement considering that services.Reverse() obviously breaks that entirely.

tl;dr: Let's loosen the specifications in an upcoming release, but instead of removing the ordering requirement which is super awesome and useful, let's remove the service replacement via Populate requirement instead.

Member

halter73 commented Jul 1, 2016

I agree that we should make the specification as easy as possible to conform to. There is a balance we have to strike though. Even though framework code shouldn't need to rely on esoteric IoC features that would create undue burdens in third-party containers to support, some things are just too good to give up. @davidfowl mentioned a few such as open generics and IEnumerable<T> injection.

ASP.NET Core (or Project K) has required IEnumerable<T> injection from day one, but the order preservation requirement was added in the final hour, and this has understandably caused a lot of frustration. I think its last minute addition has caused the requirement to get an undeserved bad rap. Order preservation is genuinely useful. It allows for simpler framework code that is easier to maintain. At the point that IEnumerable<T> injection needs to be supported at all, I don't think order preservation is too much more to ask.

I already brought this up in autofac/Autofac#755, but it seems to me that the reason that it is hard for Autofac to preserve order is because it also needs to support the older requirement of overriding services described in the service collection with ones registered later. IMHO this older requirement is far less important.

I don't see any reason for a framework to resolve the same service type singulalry and via IEnumerable<T>. It should be possible for our ServiceCollection registration methods to remove previous registrations of singular service types. Containers shouldn't need to concern themselves with which ISingularService to resolve, because Populate should never need to be called with an IServiceCollection containing multiple ISingularService registrations. If an app decides to then register a replacement for ISingularService directly with a third-party container, it's up to the app author to know how to do it in the right way.

I'll admit that I don't entirely understand how registrations sources make it more difficult for Autofac to meet the ordering requirement as brought up several times in autofac/Autofac#755. It seems to me at the point the IEnumerable<T> registration source is handling the the service resolution (as it would need to be to support the older non-ordered IEnumerable<T> requiremnt right?), shouldn't the IEnumerable<T> registration source have the ultimate say about how the IEnumerable<T> is ordered? This seems to be the case considering that ContainerBuilder.Populate(services.Reverse()); workaround well ... works. This also shows how little ASP.NET actually relies on the service replacement requirement considering that services.Reverse() obviously breaks that entirely.

tl;dr: Let's loosen the specifications in an upcoming release, but instead of removing the ordering requirement which is super awesome and useful, let's remove the service replacement via Populate requirement instead.

@aL3891

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aL3891

aL3891 Jul 1, 2016

@halter73 Why does it has to be registration order as opposed to order/priority that the DI system thinks components should be used in though? I'm sure library authors are willing to implement that if the benefits are strong enough, but maybe those benefits can be illustrated more clearly?

aL3891 commented Jul 1, 2016

@halter73 Why does it has to be registration order as opposed to order/priority that the DI system thinks components should be used in though? I'm sure library authors are willing to implement that if the benefits are strong enough, but maybe those benefits can be illustrated more clearly?

@halter73

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@halter73

halter73 Jul 1, 2016

Member

"Registration order" is probably a bit of a misnomer. It's really the order the service definitions occur in the IEnumerable<IServiceDescriptor> passed to container's Populate method. Populate is free to do whatever it wants with this metadata including calling registration methods in whatever order it wants.

I'm on my phone right now, but without ordering by the container, we were required to add Order properties to our Options services. This required error prone coordination of the relative Order values between services and was difficult/impossible to control during container composition.

Member

halter73 commented Jul 1, 2016

"Registration order" is probably a bit of a misnomer. It's really the order the service definitions occur in the IEnumerable<IServiceDescriptor> passed to container's Populate method. Populate is free to do whatever it wants with this metadata including calling registration methods in whatever order it wants.

I'm on my phone right now, but without ordering by the container, we were required to add Order properties to our Options services. This required error prone coordination of the relative Order values between services and was difficult/impossible to control during container composition.

@valeriob

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@valeriob

valeriob Jul 12, 2016

DI should be simple low overhead and just replace a bunch of calls to constructors, everything else is accidental complexity and should be resolved by design. ☺ , you should be able to switch container in an hour imho.

valeriob commented Jul 12, 2016

DI should be simple low overhead and just replace a bunch of calls to constructors, everything else is accidental complexity and should be resolved by design. ☺ , you should be able to switch container in an hour imho.

@davidfowl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidfowl

davidfowl Jul 13, 2016

Member

It would be nice to get a little bit of concession from the ASP.NET team. Again with the startup or options ordering example, getting a concession that the ordering requirement would be removed and the registration of startup/options items would start taking an order integer/indicator - problem solved. A by-all-accounts incorrect implicit behavior removed. Yes, I think that may be a breaking change, but it's also not super fair that the short-term decisions made by the smaller team seem to be leaking into breaking changes for every DI container that wants to support the interface. We're all going to be making breaking changes on some level. Wouldn't it be better to break in favor of better design and community support? Plus, not every one of these changes will be breaking. It'd be nice to see everyone amenable to a little change. So far I'm not getting that feeling from ASP.NET Core. It may just be me reading things in a poor mindset.

Mea culpa. We're not trying to be difficult. I just rather an approach where we can look at data. To do that we needed to get past whether the idea of this container is something that 3rd parties want to embrace or not. If you re-read this entire thread you'll see that there's several arguments going on in parallel:

  • Don't do conforming container
  • The ordering requirement is too much
  • Too much implicit behavior

etc. It makes it hard to pick next steps until we get past some of these things.

If IServiceProvider needs to be IDisposable it should inherit IDisposable. That said, I would not vote that be a requirement - I want people to dispose of the Autofac container they create not the service provider that uses the container. We've run into situations where people are doing odd and complex edge case things where they need control over when disposal occurs and if they need the container after the service provider is disposed that'd cause trouble.

I'm not sure about the disposable requirement either, we should discuss it more. But I agree with most of what you said @tillig. We don't need to call it a compatibility matrix, it's just our best way look at the implicit behaviors and use that as a starting point to understand why each thing needs to be there in the first place and to figure out what we can fix in the future. For 1.1 we'll definitely look at trying to relax our requirements but I'd like that to be mostly data driven. We can reach a happy middle ground without going back to the way things are.

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. For example, I think there should be adequate composition roots for each framework regardless of whether the conforming container exists. That's just good design. Maybe the default falls back to the IServiceProvider the way things used to fall back to DependencyResolver (or whatever). I don't want to see anyone "give up, take their ball, and go home."

I 10000% agree and we'll make sure we keep have more places (if we're missing places today). You guys can also help us out with this if we missed places.

Some official docs/guidance would go a long way. Stuff on the ASP.NET site with respect to "how to write framework components and use the DI abstraction." That could help people avoid falling into the pit of dependency/registration order and other things - documentation explicitly saying "DO" and "DON'T" a la the framework design guidelines.

Sounds like a good idea.

@dotnetjunkie This doesn't mean that we won't support both models but going back to the way things were seems like a non-starter.

Member

davidfowl commented Jul 13, 2016

It would be nice to get a little bit of concession from the ASP.NET team. Again with the startup or options ordering example, getting a concession that the ordering requirement would be removed and the registration of startup/options items would start taking an order integer/indicator - problem solved. A by-all-accounts incorrect implicit behavior removed. Yes, I think that may be a breaking change, but it's also not super fair that the short-term decisions made by the smaller team seem to be leaking into breaking changes for every DI container that wants to support the interface. We're all going to be making breaking changes on some level. Wouldn't it be better to break in favor of better design and community support? Plus, not every one of these changes will be breaking. It'd be nice to see everyone amenable to a little change. So far I'm not getting that feeling from ASP.NET Core. It may just be me reading things in a poor mindset.

Mea culpa. We're not trying to be difficult. I just rather an approach where we can look at data. To do that we needed to get past whether the idea of this container is something that 3rd parties want to embrace or not. If you re-read this entire thread you'll see that there's several arguments going on in parallel:

  • Don't do conforming container
  • The ordering requirement is too much
  • Too much implicit behavior

etc. It makes it hard to pick next steps until we get past some of these things.

If IServiceProvider needs to be IDisposable it should inherit IDisposable. That said, I would not vote that be a requirement - I want people to dispose of the Autofac container they create not the service provider that uses the container. We've run into situations where people are doing odd and complex edge case things where they need control over when disposal occurs and if they need the container after the service provider is disposed that'd cause trouble.

I'm not sure about the disposable requirement either, we should discuss it more. But I agree with most of what you said @tillig. We don't need to call it a compatibility matrix, it's just our best way look at the implicit behaviors and use that as a starting point to understand why each thing needs to be there in the first place and to figure out what we can fix in the future. For 1.1 we'll definitely look at trying to relax our requirements but I'd like that to be mostly data driven. We can reach a happy middle ground without going back to the way things are.

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. For example, I think there should be adequate composition roots for each framework regardless of whether the conforming container exists. That's just good design. Maybe the default falls back to the IServiceProvider the way things used to fall back to DependencyResolver (or whatever). I don't want to see anyone "give up, take their ball, and go home."

I 10000% agree and we'll make sure we keep have more places (if we're missing places today). You guys can also help us out with this if we missed places.

Some official docs/guidance would go a long way. Stuff on the ASP.NET site with respect to "how to write framework components and use the DI abstraction." That could help people avoid falling into the pit of dependency/registration order and other things - documentation explicitly saying "DO" and "DON'T" a la the framework design guidelines.

Sounds like a good idea.

@dotnetjunkie This doesn't mean that we won't support both models but going back to the way things were seems like a non-starter.

@cottsak

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cottsak

cottsak Jul 13, 2016

So @davidfowl you're answer to the conforming container is another container? It sounds like "we're not going to move. if you don't like our container, use another one beside it; but we're keeping ours". Am I wrong?

And since it seems obvious that two containers is worse than the [single] conforming one, you're essentially forcing folks to capitulate to your way since no one wants the alternative. Can we expect some cooperation or not?

cottsak commented Jul 13, 2016

So @davidfowl you're answer to the conforming container is another container? It sounds like "we're not going to move. if you don't like our container, use another one beside it; but we're keeping ours". Am I wrong?

And since it seems obvious that two containers is worse than the [single] conforming one, you're essentially forcing folks to capitulate to your way since no one wants the alternative. Can we expect some cooperation or not?

@davidfowl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidfowl

davidfowl Jul 13, 2016

Member

So @davidfowl you're answer to the conforming container is another container? It sounds like "we're not going to move. if you don't like our container, use another one beside it; but we're keeping ours". Am I wrong?

That's not my answer to anything but we're never going to get rid of the built in container. The only thing changing is to make sure we can reduce the amount of implicit behaviors and requirements needed for ASP.NET (and other frameworks that choose to use this abstraction) can work. For containers that don't want to replace the built in one, we'll have the other approach which is replacing the appropriate composition roots (which if you read this entire thread again is what @dotnetjunkie wants).

Member

davidfowl commented Jul 13, 2016

So @davidfowl you're answer to the conforming container is another container? It sounds like "we're not going to move. if you don't like our container, use another one beside it; but we're keeping ours". Am I wrong?

That's not my answer to anything but we're never going to get rid of the built in container. The only thing changing is to make sure we can reduce the amount of implicit behaviors and requirements needed for ASP.NET (and other frameworks that choose to use this abstraction) can work. For containers that don't want to replace the built in one, we'll have the other approach which is replacing the appropriate composition roots (which if you read this entire thread again is what @dotnetjunkie wants).

@QuantumHive

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@QuantumHive

QuantumHive Jul 13, 2016

I guess @davidfowl's comments above makes sense. It's a bit from both worlds. It pleases me that the @aspnet team at least listens on both ends of the spectrum of it's community and tries to find a middle way. That's the best you can do.

QuantumHive commented Jul 13, 2016

I guess @davidfowl's comments above makes sense. It's a bit from both worlds. It pleases me that the @aspnet team at least listens on both ends of the spectrum of it's community and tries to find a middle way. That's the best you can do.

@calebjenkins

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@calebjenkins

calebjenkins Jul 14, 2016

DLDR: There is an internal container that 3rd party containers need to "conform" to in order to have a single container approach. There is a 2 container approach for non-conforming containers.

Seems legit.

Bonus: the fewer requirements needed to be considered a "conforming container" - the easier it will be for 3rd party containers to conform in a single container solution.

calebjenkins commented Jul 14, 2016

DLDR: There is an internal container that 3rd party containers need to "conform" to in order to have a single container approach. There is a 2 container approach for non-conforming containers.

Seems legit.

Bonus: the fewer requirements needed to be considered a "conforming container" - the easier it will be for 3rd party containers to conform in a single container solution.

@mattnischan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mattnischan

mattnischan Jul 17, 2016

That's not my answer to anything but we're never going to get rid of the built in container. The only thing changing is to make sure we can reduce the amount of implicit behaviors and requirements needed for ASP.NET (and other frameworks that choose to use this abstraction) can work. For containers that don't want to replace the built in one, we'll have the other approach which is replacing the appropriate composition roots (which if you read this entire thread again is what @dotnetjunkie wants).

Having contributed a tiny bit to LightInject, and being familiar with that code, I can tell you that the ordering requirement without an explicit interface contract is a poor design and will be very hard to support for some containers. Of course, this has all been said already.

What I haven't seen proposed yet is actually making that part of the contract. Instead of imposing an invisible implementation, isn't is possible to support additional service registration methods that allow a priority to be passed in, something like Register<T>(int priority) and Register(Type type, int priority)? Surely if the ordering is important, and someone is performing the composition (which is indeed happening at the filter level and other places), then someone has the knowledge available to pass that down to the container.

That would make it explicit that conforming containers would need to support some kind of service priority mechanism. I'm not saying that will be a cakewalk for all container maintainers, but at least it isn't a totally hidden implementation detail.

mattnischan commented Jul 17, 2016

That's not my answer to anything but we're never going to get rid of the built in container. The only thing changing is to make sure we can reduce the amount of implicit behaviors and requirements needed for ASP.NET (and other frameworks that choose to use this abstraction) can work. For containers that don't want to replace the built in one, we'll have the other approach which is replacing the appropriate composition roots (which if you read this entire thread again is what @dotnetjunkie wants).

Having contributed a tiny bit to LightInject, and being familiar with that code, I can tell you that the ordering requirement without an explicit interface contract is a poor design and will be very hard to support for some containers. Of course, this has all been said already.

What I haven't seen proposed yet is actually making that part of the contract. Instead of imposing an invisible implementation, isn't is possible to support additional service registration methods that allow a priority to be passed in, something like Register<T>(int priority) and Register(Type type, int priority)? Surely if the ordering is important, and someone is performing the composition (which is indeed happening at the filter level and other places), then someone has the knowledge available to pass that down to the container.

That would make it explicit that conforming containers would need to support some kind of service priority mechanism. I'm not saying that will be a cakewalk for all container maintainers, but at least it isn't a totally hidden implementation detail.

@davidfowl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidfowl

davidfowl Jul 17, 2016

Member

The tricky part with supporting DI is that not all of the things can be codified into the interface definition. That would make it easier for sure but some of it is just impossible.

Right now we're researching a couple of things:

  • We're looking to see which components depend on specific features of the DI container (via some automation) and as part of it, we want to see if we can automate any of it.
  • We're looking at @tillig's suggestions (like writing a chaos container, one of our devs already wrote a second one)
  • We're trying to see if we build ordering on top via another service type (playing around with IOrdered<T>)
  • We're looking at the implementations of other adapters to see what things are impossible to implement (We could use everyone's help/feedback on this one).
  • As a result of the previous exercise, we're also looking to see what other requirements we can relax (last registration wins, closed generics falling back to open generics etc)

As for the a specific list of things we think can be candidates for potential removal:

  • Ordering - We're trying to build a service on top with some that can potentially handle this.
  • Last registration wins - We'll likely change the API around service collection to make sure that if multiple registrations make it into the container, resolving it as a single service fails.
Member

davidfowl commented Jul 17, 2016

The tricky part with supporting DI is that not all of the things can be codified into the interface definition. That would make it easier for sure but some of it is just impossible.

Right now we're researching a couple of things:

  • We're looking to see which components depend on specific features of the DI container (via some automation) and as part of it, we want to see if we can automate any of it.
  • We're looking at @tillig's suggestions (like writing a chaos container, one of our devs already wrote a second one)
  • We're trying to see if we build ordering on top via another service type (playing around with IOrdered<T>)
  • We're looking at the implementations of other adapters to see what things are impossible to implement (We could use everyone's help/feedback on this one).
  • As a result of the previous exercise, we're also looking to see what other requirements we can relax (last registration wins, closed generics falling back to open generics etc)

As for the a specific list of things we think can be candidates for potential removal:

  • Ordering - We're trying to build a service on top with some that can potentially handle this.
  • Last registration wins - We'll likely change the API around service collection to make sure that if multiple registrations make it into the container, resolving it as a single service fails.
@tillig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tillig

tillig Jul 17, 2016

Contributor

@mattnischan It was briefly mentioned by @halter73 a bit ago:

without ordering by the container, we were required to add Order properties to our Options services. This required error prone coordination of the relative Order values between services and was difficult/impossible to control during container composition.

Contributor

tillig commented Jul 17, 2016

@mattnischan It was briefly mentioned by @halter73 a bit ago:

without ordering by the container, we were required to add Order properties to our Options services. This required error prone coordination of the relative Order values between services and was difficult/impossible to control during container composition.

@khellang

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@khellang

khellang Jul 17, 2016

Contributor

Right now we're researching a couple of things

Looks like some good ideas there... 👍

Last registration wins - We'll likely change the API around service collection to make sure that if multiple registrations make it into the container, resolving it as a single service fails.

What about being more specific WRT cardinality up-front?

In Nancy, we have a CollectionTypeRegistration that specifically is for multi-registrations. That way it's easier for containers like SimpleInjector that require an explicit collection registration to conform.

What about a IEnumerable<Type> ImplementationTypes property on ServiceDescriptor? (BTW, why are these properties on same type instead of different types?)

It might be harder to do with ASP.NET than with Nancy, since you might not have control over cardinality up-front, though.

Contributor

khellang commented Jul 17, 2016

Right now we're researching a couple of things

Looks like some good ideas there... 👍

Last registration wins - We'll likely change the API around service collection to make sure that if multiple registrations make it into the container, resolving it as a single service fails.

What about being more specific WRT cardinality up-front?

In Nancy, we have a CollectionTypeRegistration that specifically is for multi-registrations. That way it's easier for containers like SimpleInjector that require an explicit collection registration to conform.

What about a IEnumerable<Type> ImplementationTypes property on ServiceDescriptor? (BTW, why are these properties on same type instead of different types?)

It might be harder to do with ASP.NET than with Nancy, since you might not have control over cardinality up-front, though.

@davidfowl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidfowl

davidfowl Jul 17, 2016

Member

In Nancy, we have a CollectionTypeRegistration that specifically is for multi-registrations. That way it's easier for containers like SimpleInjector that require an explicit collection registration to conform.

I don't see why that makes it easier TBH and it also is a bit more restrictive as we'd need to support registering the 3 things you can always register (type, instance, delegate). The contract could be as simple as "if there's multiple things with the same service type, it can't be resolved as a single".

Member

davidfowl commented Jul 17, 2016

In Nancy, we have a CollectionTypeRegistration that specifically is for multi-registrations. That way it's easier for containers like SimpleInjector that require an explicit collection registration to conform.

I don't see why that makes it easier TBH and it also is a bit more restrictive as we'd need to support registering the 3 things you can always register (type, instance, delegate). The contract could be as simple as "if there's multiple things with the same service type, it can't be resolved as a single".

@dadhi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dadhi

dadhi Jul 17, 2016

Contributor

We'll likely change the API around service collection to make sure that if multiple registrations make it into the container, resolving it as a single service fails.

DryIoc provides such failing behavior by default, to be more deterministic. In addition, exception message lists the registrations found. Then container may have an opt-in setting to UseLastRegistration, or First, or whatever matching the condition.

Contributor

dadhi commented Jul 17, 2016

We'll likely change the API around service collection to make sure that if multiple registrations make it into the container, resolving it as a single service fails.

DryIoc provides such failing behavior by default, to be more deterministic. In addition, exception message lists the registrations found. Then container may have an opt-in setting to UseLastRegistration, or First, or whatever matching the condition.

@khellang

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@khellang

khellang Jul 17, 2016

Contributor

@davidfowl If you had a way to express which registration (that's part of a collection) was the "main" registration, the container adapter could do what it needs to do. I don't see a way of doing that using a GroupBy on service type.

Contributor

khellang commented Jul 17, 2016

@davidfowl If you had a way to express which registration (that's part of a collection) was the "main" registration, the container adapter could do what it needs to do. I don't see a way of doing that using a GroupBy on service type.

@pakrym

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pakrym

pakrym Jul 18, 2016

Contributor

I've looked into DI container feature usage in ASP.NET Core applications, there is some data here

Legend:

  1. IEnumerableNoOrder - IEnumerable<T> where T does not have Order property
  2. Inception - GetService gets called in factory method while resolving other service
  3. OrderOverride - multiple implementation registered for same service and resolved without IEnumerable
  4. ConstructorSelection - more then one constructor
  5. Others should be self explanatory

Click on service names to get stack traces

Contributor

pakrym commented Jul 18, 2016

I've looked into DI container feature usage in ASP.NET Core applications, there is some data here

Legend:

  1. IEnumerableNoOrder - IEnumerable<T> where T does not have Order property
  2. Inception - GetService gets called in factory method while resolving other service
  3. OrderOverride - multiple implementation registered for same service and resolved without IEnumerable
  4. ConstructorSelection - more then one constructor
  5. Others should be self explanatory

Click on service names to get stack traces

@dotnetjunkie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dotnetjunkie

dotnetjunkie Jul 19, 2016

We're looking at the implementations of other adapters to see what things are impossible to implement (We could use everyone's help/feedback on this one).

There is a lot of implicit behavior in the adapter that will have to be explicitly unspecified. In other words, the contract should explicitly state that in certain conditions an adapter is free to behave as it chooses. For instance, an adapter is allowed to throw an exception.

When considering the current version of Simple Injector, the behavior as specified by the abstraction should be undetermined in the following scenarios:

  • A captive dependency is registered. Simple Injector will throw an exception when an object graph contains captive dependencies.
  • A disposable transient component is registered. Simple Injector throws an exception during verification when a component that implements IDisposable is registered as transient.
  • A component with ambiguous lifestyles is registered. Simple Injector throws an exception during verification when it finds multiple registrations for the same components (e.g. using different interfaces) that are registered with different lifestyles.
  • Multiple registrations for the same component and same lifestyle, but with different interfaces. The current version of Simple Injector throws an exception during verification when there are multiple registrations for the same component (e.g. using different interfaces) for the same lifestyle, when the registrations will result in having multiple instances of that component within the same scope. In a future version, we are likely to automatically merge these registrations into one to prevent this (much like Unity already does), but this means that it should be undetermined how the system behaves when this happens. i.e. the options are: registrations could be merged, the container can resolve multiple instances per scope, or an exception can be thrown.
  • Registration of types with multiple constructors. Simple Injector throws an exception when a type with multiple constructors is registered.
  • Registration of open generic types that overlap with closed generic registrations. Simple Injector does not treat open generic types as fallback, but will instead throws an exception where registrations overlap.
  • Resolving transient components from ApplicationServices. The built-in container seems to resolve transient components as singleton, when requested from the ApplicationServices property. Simple Injector would resolve them as transient.
  • Resolving scoped components from ApplicationServices. Simple Injector does not allow resolving scoped instances outside the context of an active scope. It throws an exception instead.
  • In Simple Injector IEnumerable<T> dependencies are streams. What this means is that those components will only be created when the IEnumerable<T> is iterated and components will be resolved according their registered lifestyle. What this means is that a transient component will be created everytime the collection is iterated. In other words, the IEnumerable<T> dependency itself is a singleton that has factory-like behavior. It can be safely injected into a singleton component, even though its elements might be transient, scoped or singleton. Since other containers behave differently in this respect, it means that it should be explicitly undetermined how IEnumerables should behave.

Since other DI containers behave differently in this respect, the DI abstraction should make the exact behavior undetermined.

Besides the above list of behavior that has to become explicitly unspecified, there are other behaviors of the abstraction that I’m currently unsure of how it should be specified for the current version of Simple Injector to conform. These included:

  • Registration and resolving of collections. In its API, Simple Injector explicitly separates the registration of collections from one-to-one mappings. Letting an adapter to Simple Injector register everything as collection (with possibly one element) makes users lose out on one of Simple Injector verification capabilities. Disallowing a single ‘default’ to be resolved when there are multiple registrations (as proposed earlier in this thread) doesn’t change this fact.
  • Scopes are explicit. In Simple Injector, scopes are ambient (just like TransactionScope) and the services are always resolves from the container; never directly from a scope instance.

This is what I’ve been able to come up with at this point and that holds for the current version of Simple Injector. As already noted above, there is already a plan to change some behavior of Simple Injector in the next major version. I will likely have missed some things, so I will update this comment as I discover more items.

dotnetjunkie commented Jul 19, 2016

We're looking at the implementations of other adapters to see what things are impossible to implement (We could use everyone's help/feedback on this one).

There is a lot of implicit behavior in the adapter that will have to be explicitly unspecified. In other words, the contract should explicitly state that in certain conditions an adapter is free to behave as it chooses. For instance, an adapter is allowed to throw an exception.

When considering the current version of Simple Injector, the behavior as specified by the abstraction should be undetermined in the following scenarios:

  • A captive dependency is registered. Simple Injector will throw an exception when an object graph contains captive dependencies.
  • A disposable transient component is registered. Simple Injector throws an exception during verification when a component that implements IDisposable is registered as transient.
  • A component with ambiguous lifestyles is registered. Simple Injector throws an exception during verification when it finds multiple registrations for the same components (e.g. using different interfaces) that are registered with different lifestyles.
  • Multiple registrations for the same component and same lifestyle, but with different interfaces. The current version of Simple Injector throws an exception during verification when there are multiple registrations for the same component (e.g. using different interfaces) for the same lifestyle, when the registrations will result in having multiple instances of that component within the same scope. In a future version, we are likely to automatically merge these registrations into one to prevent this (much like Unity already does), but this means that it should be undetermined how the system behaves when this happens. i.e. the options are: registrations could be merged, the container can resolve multiple instances per scope, or an exception can be thrown.
  • Registration of types with multiple constructors. Simple Injector throws an exception when a type with multiple constructors is registered.
  • Registration of open generic types that overlap with closed generic registrations. Simple Injector does not treat open generic types as fallback, but will instead throws an exception where registrations overlap.
  • Resolving transient components from ApplicationServices. The built-in container seems to resolve transient components as singleton, when requested from the ApplicationServices property. Simple Injector would resolve them as transient.
  • Resolving scoped components from ApplicationServices. Simple Injector does not allow resolving scoped instances outside the context of an active scope. It throws an exception instead.
  • In Simple Injector IEnumerable<T> dependencies are streams. What this means is that those components will only be created when the IEnumerable<T> is iterated and components will be resolved according their registered lifestyle. What this means is that a transient component will be created everytime the collection is iterated. In other words, the IEnumerable<T> dependency itself is a singleton that has factory-like behavior. It can be safely injected into a singleton component, even though its elements might be transient, scoped or singleton. Since other containers behave differently in this respect, it means that it should be explicitly undetermined how IEnumerables should behave.

Since other DI containers behave differently in this respect, the DI abstraction should make the exact behavior undetermined.

Besides the above list of behavior that has to become explicitly unspecified, there are other behaviors of the abstraction that I’m currently unsure of how it should be specified for the current version of Simple Injector to conform. These included:

  • Registration and resolving of collections. In its API, Simple Injector explicitly separates the registration of collections from one-to-one mappings. Letting an adapter to Simple Injector register everything as collection (with possibly one element) makes users lose out on one of Simple Injector verification capabilities. Disallowing a single ‘default’ to be resolved when there are multiple registrations (as proposed earlier in this thread) doesn’t change this fact.
  • Scopes are explicit. In Simple Injector, scopes are ambient (just like TransactionScope) and the services are always resolves from the container; never directly from a scope instance.

This is what I’ve been able to come up with at this point and that holds for the current version of Simple Injector. As already noted above, there is already a plan to change some behavior of Simple Injector in the next major version. I will likely have missed some things, so I will update this comment as I discover more items.

@slaneyrw

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@slaneyrw

slaneyrw Jul 19, 2016

@pakrym Looking at your generated stack traces I'm dismayed to see the prevalence of ServiceLocator patterns. Most of them are in application initialization; understandable ( but IOptions<> - WTF )

However IEnumerable<IActionDescriptorProvider> appears to be resolved in a request during routing, this indicates to me that there is a design flaw

slaneyrw commented Jul 19, 2016

@pakrym Looking at your generated stack traces I'm dismayed to see the prevalence of ServiceLocator patterns. Most of them are in application initialization; understandable ( but IOptions<> - WTF )

However IEnumerable<IActionDescriptorProvider> appears to be resolved in a request during routing, this indicates to me that there is a design flaw

@slaneyrw

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@slaneyrw

slaneyrw Jul 20, 2016

@dotnetjunkie Looking at the perspective of a Unity user I echo most of your points, and explicitly call out the Cardinality problem.

I have been a user of the Unity container for many years and i have a fork of the GitHub that I'm using to convert it to netstandard1.6. When i was trying to build an Adapter for IServiceCollection/IServiceProvider I immediately came across the issue of how to distinguish between a replacement registration and a multiple registration.

TryAdd is easy as you check for an existing registration and add if not present
Add becomes complicated... Do I replace the existing registration or add another one. Without understanding of the intent of a registration at the time of registration the container will have to hedge both bets.

It become vastly more complicated with IServiceScope. It doesn't make sense to me have registrations for any type that is designed for a single instance when resolved to have both a Scope lifetime and singleton/transient lifetime. In Unity a Scoped lifetime would be implemented using the HierarchicalLifetimeManager. If a type was resolved from the composition root ( i.e. IServiceProvider ) or from the scope (IServiceScope ? ) then the same build plan would be used but the instances will be stored in their respective owner container. I would not be possible to store two separate registrations for two different implementation without creating a new registration in the scope container when it is created ( or black magic to "migrate" a parent registration marked as "Scope" ). Once again, having this distinction for a single instance resolve does not make sense to me.

Without any cadinality metadata at registration I will be forced to maintain two sets of registrations. If Add is used then I will have to add a default registration AND a named registration. If Add is used multiple times for the same interface/concrete then last in wins for the default registration.

Having to maintain a specific order for resolved IEnumerable<T> should be easy to accomplish by adding a post resolve build policy for those interfaces what have Order metadata, like IOptions<T>.

However is there anything in the spec that indicates whether the order should be evaluated across the entire resolve set... i.e.

  1. Resolve both composition root AND scope, then ordering
  2. Resolving and ordering from scope and composition root respectively, in isolation, then concatentating, and in what order
  3. Resolving IEnumerable<T> from IServiceScope should ignore composition root

slaneyrw commented Jul 20, 2016

@dotnetjunkie Looking at the perspective of a Unity user I echo most of your points, and explicitly call out the Cardinality problem.

I have been a user of the Unity container for many years and i have a fork of the GitHub that I'm using to convert it to netstandard1.6. When i was trying to build an Adapter for IServiceCollection/IServiceProvider I immediately came across the issue of how to distinguish between a replacement registration and a multiple registration.

TryAdd is easy as you check for an existing registration and add if not present
Add becomes complicated... Do I replace the existing registration or add another one. Without understanding of the intent of a registration at the time of registration the container will have to hedge both bets.

It become vastly more complicated with IServiceScope. It doesn't make sense to me have registrations for any type that is designed for a single instance when resolved to have both a Scope lifetime and singleton/transient lifetime. In Unity a Scoped lifetime would be implemented using the HierarchicalLifetimeManager. If a type was resolved from the composition root ( i.e. IServiceProvider ) or from the scope (IServiceScope ? ) then the same build plan would be used but the instances will be stored in their respective owner container. I would not be possible to store two separate registrations for two different implementation without creating a new registration in the scope container when it is created ( or black magic to "migrate" a parent registration marked as "Scope" ). Once again, having this distinction for a single instance resolve does not make sense to me.

Without any cadinality metadata at registration I will be forced to maintain two sets of registrations. If Add is used then I will have to add a default registration AND a named registration. If Add is used multiple times for the same interface/concrete then last in wins for the default registration.

Having to maintain a specific order for resolved IEnumerable<T> should be easy to accomplish by adding a post resolve build policy for those interfaces what have Order metadata, like IOptions<T>.

However is there anything in the spec that indicates whether the order should be evaluated across the entire resolve set... i.e.

  1. Resolve both composition root AND scope, then ordering
  2. Resolving and ordering from scope and composition root respectively, in isolation, then concatentating, and in what order
  3. Resolving IEnumerable<T> from IServiceScope should ignore composition root
@davidfowl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@davidfowl

davidfowl Jul 20, 2016

Member

Let's move this discussion to #433 so we don't have to comment on a closed pull request.

Member

davidfowl commented Jul 20, 2016

Let's move this discussion to #433 so we don't have to comment on a closed pull request.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment