How to handle dependency injection in a WPF/MVVM a

Question

I am starting a new desktop application and I want to build it using MVVM and WPF.

I am also intending to use TDD.

The problem is that I don´t know how I should use an IoC container to inject my dependencies on my production code.

Suppose I have the folowing class and interface:

public interface IStorage
{
    bool SaveFile(string content);
}

public class Storage : IStorage
{
    public bool SaveFile(string content){
        // Saves the file using StreamWriter
    }
}

And then I have another class that has IStorage as a dependency, suppose also that this class is a ViewModel or a business class...

public class SomeViewModel
{
    private IStorage _storage;

    public SomeViewModel(IStorage storage){
        _storage = storage;
    }
}

With this I can easily write unit tests to ensure that they are working properly, using mocks and etc.

The problem is when it comes to use it in the real application. I know that I must have an IoC container that links a default implementation for the IStorage interface, but how may I to do it?

For example, how would it be if I had the following xaml:

<Window 
    ... xmlns definitions ...
>
   <Window.DataContext>
        <local:SomeViewModel />
   </Window.DataContext>
</Window>

How can I correctly 'tell' WPF to inject dependencies in that case?

Also, suppose I need an instance of SomeViewModel from my cs code, how should I do it?

I feel I´m completely lost in this, I would appreciate any example or guidance of how is the best way to handle it.

I am familiar with StructureMap, but I´m not an expert. Also, if there is a better/easier/out-of-the-box framework, please let me know.

Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

I go for a "view first" approach, where I pass the view-model to the view's constructor (in its code-behind), which gets assigned to the data context, e.g.

public class SomeView
{
    public SomeView(SomeViewModel viewModel)
    {
        InitializeComponent();

        DataContext = viewModel;
    }
}

This replaces your XAML-based approach.

I use the Prism framework to handle navigation - when some code requests a particular view be displayed (by "navigating" to it), Prism will resolve that view (internally, using the app's DI framework); the DI framework will in turn resolve any dependencies that the view has (the view model in my example), then resolves its dependencies, and so on.

Choice of DI framework is pretty much irrelevant as they all do essentially the same thing, i.e. you register an interface (or a type) along with the concrete type that you want the framework to instantiate when it finds a dependency on that interface. For the record I use Castle Windsor.

Prism navigation takes some getting used to but is pretty good once you get your head around it, allowing you to compose your application using different views. E.g. you might create a Prism "region" on your main window, then using Prism navigation you would switch from one view to another within this region, e.g. as the user selects menu items or whatever.

Alternatively take a look at one of the MVVM frameworks such as MVVM Light. I've got no experience of these so can't comment on what they're like to use.

Answer 2

I would suggest to use the ViewModel - First approach https://github.com/Caliburn-Micro/Caliburn.Micro

see: https://caliburnmicro.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=All%20About%20Conventions

use Castle Windsor as IOC container.

All About Conventions

One of the main features of Caliburn.Micro is manifest in its ability to remove the need for boiler plate code by acting on a series of conventions. Some people love conventions and some hate them. That’s why CM’s conventions are fully customizable and can even be turned off completely if not desired. If you are going to use conventions, and since they are ON by default, it’s good to know what those conventions are and how they work. That’s the subject of this article. View Resolution (ViewModel-First)

Basics

The first convention you are likely to encounter when using CM is related to view resolution. This convention affects any ViewModel-First areas of your application. In ViewModel-First, we have an existing ViewModel that we need to render to the screen. To do this, CM uses a simple naming pattern to find a UserControl1 that it should bind to the ViewModel and display. So, what is that pattern? Let’s just take a look at ViewLocator.LocateForModelType to find out:

public static Func<Type, DependencyObject, object, UIElement> LocateForModelType = (modelType, displayLocation, context) =>{
    var viewTypeName = modelType.FullName.Replace("Model", string.Empty);
    if(context != null)
    {
        viewTypeName = viewTypeName.Remove(viewTypeName.Length - 4, 4);
        viewTypeName = viewTypeName + "." + context;
    }

    var viewType = (from assmebly in AssemblySource.Instance
                    from type in assmebly.GetExportedTypes()
                    where type.FullName == viewTypeName
                    select type).FirstOrDefault();

    return viewType == null
        ? new TextBlock { Text = string.Format("{0} not found.", viewTypeName) }
        : GetOrCreateViewType(viewType);
};

Let’s ignore the “context” variable at first. To derive the view, we make an assumption that you are using the text “ViewModel” in the naming of your VMs, so we just change that to “View” everywhere that we find it by removing the word “Model”. This has the effect of changing both type names and namespaces. So ViewModels.CustomerViewModel would become Views.CustomerView. Or if you are organizing your application by feature: CustomerManagement.CustomerViewModel becomes CustomerManagement.CustomerView. Hopefully, that’s pretty straight forward. Once we have the name, we then search for types with that name. We search any assembly you have exposed to CM as searchable via AssemblySource.Instance.2 If we find the type, we create an instance (or get one from the IoC container if it’s registered) and return it to the caller. If we don’t find the type, we generate a view with an appropriate “not found” message.

Now, back to that “context” value. This is how CM supports multiple Views over the same ViewModel. If a context (typically a string or an enum) is provided, we do a further transformation of the name, based on that value. This transformation effectively assumes you have a folder (namespace) for the different views by removing the word “View” from the end and appending the context instead. So, given a context of “Master” our ViewModels.CustomerViewModel would become Views.Customer.Master.

Answer 3

I have been using Ninject, and found that it's a pleasure to work with. Everything is set up in code, the syntax is fairly straightforward and it has a good documentation (and plenty of answers on SO).

So basically it goes like this:

Create the view model, and take the IStorage interface as constructor parameter:

class UserControlViewModel
{
    public UserControlViewModel(IStorage storage)
    {

    }
}

Create a ViewModelLocator with a get property for the view model, which loads the view model from Ninject:

class ViewModelLocator
{
    public UserControlViewModel UserControlViewModel
    {
        get { return IocKernel.Get<UserControlViewModel>();} // Loading UserControlViewModel will automatically load the binding for IStorage
    }
}

Make the ViewModelLocator an application wide resource in App.xaml:

<Application ...>
    <Application.Resources>
        <local:ViewModelLocator x:Key="ViewModelLocator"/>
    </Application.Resources>
</Application>

Bind the DataContext of the UserControl to the corresponding property in the ViewModelLocator.

<UserControl ...
             DataContext="{Binding UserControlViewModel, Source={StaticResource ViewModelLocator}}">
    <Grid>
    </Grid>
</UserControl>

Create a class inheriting NinjectModule, which will set up the necessary bindings (IStorage and the viewmodel):

class IocConfiguration : NinjectModule
{
    public override void Load()
    {
        Bind<IStorage>().To<Storage>().InSingletonScope(); // Reuse same storage every time

        Bind<UserControlViewModel>().ToSelf().InTransientScope(); // Create new instance every time
    }
}

Initialize the IoC kernel on application startup with the necessary Ninject modules (the one above for now):

public partial class App : Application
{       
    protected override void OnStartup(StartupEventArgs e)
    {
        IocKernel.Initialize(new IocConfiguration());

        base.OnStartup(e);
    }
}

I have used a static IocKernel class to hold the application wide instance of the IoC kernel, so I can easily access it when needed:

public static class IocKernel
{
    private static StandardKernel _kernel;

    public static T Get<T>()
    {
        return _kernel.Get<T>();
    }

    public static void Initialize(params INinjectModule[] modules)
    {
        if (_kernel == null)
        {
            _kernel = new StandardKernel(modules);
        }
    }
}

This solution does make use of a static ServiceLocator (the IocKernel), which is generally regarded as an anti-pattern, because it hides the class' dependencies. However it is very difficult to avoid some sort of manual service lookup for UI classes, since they must have a parameterless constructor, and you cannot control the instantiation anyway, so you cannot inject the VM. At least this way allows you to test the VM in isolation, which is where all the business logic is.

If anyone has a better way, please do share.

EDIT: Lucky Likey provided an answer to get rid of the static service locator, by letting Ninject instantiate UI classes. The details of the answer can be seen here