Search Results

Search found 1303 results on 53 pages for 'injection'.

Page 1/53 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• What is constructor injection?

  - by TheSilverBullet

  I have been looking at the terms constructor injection and dependency injection while going through articles on (Service locator) design patterns. When I googled about constructor injection, I got unclear results, which prompted me to check in here. What is constructor injection? Is this a specific type of dependency injection? A canonical example would be a great help! Edit Revisiting this questions after a gap of a week, I can see how lost I was... Just in case anyone else pops in here, I will update the question body with a little learning of mine. Please do feel free to comment/correct. Constructor injection and property injection are two types of Dependency Injection.

  Read the article

• How does dependecy injection increase coupling?

  - by B?????

  On the Wikipedia page on dependency injection, the disadvantages section tells us this: Dependency injection increases coupling by requiring the user of a subsystem to provide for the needs of that subsystem. with a link to an article against dependency injection. Dependency injection makes a class use the interface instead of the concrete implementation. That should result in decreased coupling, no? What am I missing? How is dependency injection increasing coupling between classes?

  Read the article

• SubCut Scala Dependency Injection Framework

  - by kerry

  It’s no secret I am a fan of dependency injection.  So I was happy to hear that Dick Wall of the Java Posse recently released a dependency injection framework for scala.  Called SubCut, or Scala Uniquely Bound Classes Under Traits, the project is a ‘mix of service locator and dependency injection patterns designed to provide an idiomatic way of providing configured dependencies to scala applications’. It’s hosted on github, so ‘git’ (rimshot) over there and try it out: Dependency injection framework for Scala

  Read the article

• dependency injection example project suggestion

  - by TokenMacGuy

  I'm exploring dependency injection and trying to make the exercise as pythonic as possible; existing dependency injection frameworks seem very java-like. I've made some pretty good progress building my own framework, but I could really use a model project to validate the framework against. An ideal suggestion would be something that is hard without dependency injection, but is otherwise conceptually trivial.

  Read the article

• Difference between spring setter and interface injection?

  - by Satish Pandey

  I know how constructor and setter injection works in spring. Normally I use interfaces instead of classes to inject beans using setter and I consider it as interface injection, but in case of constructor we also use interfaces (I am confused). In following example I use JobProcessor interface instead of JobProcessorImpl class. public class JobScheduler { // JobProcessor interface private JobProcessor jobProcessor; // Dependecy injection public void setJobProcessor(JobProcessor jobProcessor){ this.jobProcessor = jobProcessor; } } I tried to find a solution by googling but there are different opinions by writers. Even some people says that spring doesn't support interface injection in their blogs/statements. Can someone help me by example?

  Read the article

• How dependecy injection increases coupling?

  - by B?????

  Reading wiki page on Dependency injection, the disadvantages section tells this : Dependency injection increases coupling by requiring the user of a subsystem to provide for the needs of that subsystem. with a link to an article against DI. What DI does is that it makes a class use the interface instead of the concrete implementation. That should be decreased coupling, no? So, what am I missing? How is dependency injection increasing coupling between classes?

  Read the article

• What should considered to prevent Injection in request forms ?

  - by Nasser Hajloo

  What should considered to prevent Injection in request forms ? e.g : using Recaptcha, preventing SQL Injections, etc ... what other item should be consider ?

  Read the article

• What are the downsides to using dependency injection?

  - by kerry

  I recently came across an interesting question on stack overflow with some interesting reponses.  I like this post for three reasons. First, I am a big fan of dependency injection, it forces you to decouple your code, create cohesive interfaces, and should result in testable classes. Second, the author took the approach I usually do when trying to evaluate a technique or technology; suspend personal feelings and try to find some compelling arguments against it. Third, it proved that it is very difficult to come up with a compelling argument against dependency injection. What are the downsides to using dependency injection?

  Read the article

• Dependency injection and IOC containers in a closed project

  - by Puckl

  Does it make sense to assemble my project with dependency injection containers if I am the only one who will use the code of that project? The question came up when I read this IOC Article http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html The justification for using dependency injection in this article is that friends can reuse a class, and replace depending classes with their own classes because they get injected and not instantiated in the class. I would only use it to inject objects where they are needed instead of passing them through layers to their target. (Which is not so bad I learned here: Is it bad practice to pass instances through several layers?) (Maybe I will reuse parts of the project, who knows, but I don´t know if that is a good justification)

  Read the article

• Dependency injection with web services?

  - by John K.

  I've recently discovered a possible candidate for dependency injection in a .Net application I've designed. Due to a recent organizational policy, it is no longer possible to call smtp mail services from client machines on our network. So I'm going to have to refactor all the code in my application where it was previously calling the smtp object to send out mail. I created a new WCF web service on an authorized web server that does allow for smtp mail messaging. This seems to be a great candidate for dependency injection. I will create a new INotification interface that will have a method like 'void SendNotification(MailMessage msg)' and create a new property in my application where you can set this property to any class that implements this interface. My question tho, is whether it's possible, through dependency injection, to encapsulate the instantiation of a .NET WCF web service? I am fairly new at IoC and Dependency injection frameworks, so I am not quite sure if it can handle web service dependencies? I'm hoping someone else out there has come across this situation or has knowledge regarding this subject? cheers, John

  Read the article

• Organising data access for dependency injection

  - by IanAWP

  In our company we have a relatively long history of database backed applications, but have only just begun experimenting with dependency injection. I am looking for advice about how to convert our existing data access pattern into one more suited for dependency injection. Some specific questions: Do you create one access object per table (Given that a table represents an entity collection)? One interface per table? All of these would need the low level Data Access object to be injected, right? What about if there are dozens of tables, wouldn't that make the composition root into a nightmare? Would you instead have a single interface that defines things like GetCustomer(), GetOrder(), etc? If I took the example of EntityFramework, then I would have one Container that exposes an object for each table, but that container doesn't conform to any interface itself, so doesn't seem like it's compatible with DI. What we do now, in case it helps: The way we normally manage data access is through a generic data layer which exposes CRUD/Transaction capabilities and has provider specific subclasses which handle the creation of IDbConnection, IDbCommand, etc. Actual table access uses Table classes that perform the CRUD operations associated with a particular table and accept/return domain objects that the rest of the system deals with. These table classes expose only static methods, and utilise a static DataAccess singleton instantiated from a config file.

  Read the article

• Gradual approaches to dependency injection

  - by JW01

  I'm working on making my classes unit-testable, using dependency injection. But some of these classes have a lot of clients, and I'm not ready to refactor all of them to start passing in the dependencies yet. So I'm trying to do it gradually; keeping the default dependencies for now, but allowing them to be overridden for testing. One approach I'm conisdering is just moving all the "new" calls into their own methods, e.g.: public MyObject createMyObject(args) { return new MyObject(args); } Then in my unit tests, I can just subclass this class, and override the create functions, so they create fake objects instead. Is this a good approach? Are there any disadvantages? More generally, is it okay to have hard-coded dependencies, as long as you can replace them for testing? I know the preferred approach is to explicitly require them in the constructor, and I'd like to get there eventually. But I'm wondering if this is a good first step.

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection Confusion

  - by James

  I think I have a decent grasp of what Dependency Inversion principle (DIP) is, my confusion is more around dependency injection. My understanding is the whole point of DI is to decouple parts of an application, to allow changes in one part without effecting another, assuming the interface does not change. For examples sake, we have this public class MyClass(IMyInterface interface) { public MyClass { interface.DoSomething(); } } public interface IMyInterface { void DoSomething(); } How is this var iocContainer = new UnityContainer(); iocContainer.Resolve<MyClass>(); better practice than doing this //if multiple implementations are possible, could use a factory here. IMyInterface interface = new InterfaceImplementation(); var myClass = new MyClass(interface); It may be I am missing a very important point, but I am failing to see what is gained. I am aware that using an IOC container I can easily handle an objects life cycle, which is a +1 but I don't think that is core to what IOC is about.

  Read the article

• Where should I put bindings for dependency injection?

  - by Mike G

  I'm new to dependency injection and though I've really liked it so far, I'm not sure where bindings should go. I'm using Guice in Java, so some of what I say might be specific to just Guice. As I see it, there's two options: Accompanying the class(s) its needed for. Then, just write install(OtherClassModule.class) in whatever other modules want to be able to use said class. As I see it, the advantage of this is that classes that want to use it (or manage classes that want to use it) don't need to know any of the implementation detail. The issue I see is that what if two classes want to use two different versions of the same class? There's a lot of customization possible because of DI and this seems to restrict it a lot. Implemented in the module of the class(s) its needed for. It's the flip of what I said above. Now you have customization, but not encapsulation. Is there a third option? Am I misunderstanding something obvious? What's the best practice?

  Read the article

• Desktop application, dependency injection

  - by liori

  I am thinking of applying a real dependency injection library to my toy C#/GTK# desktop application. I chose NInject, but I think this is irrelevant to my question. There is a database object, a main window and several utility window classes. It's clear that I can inject the database into every window object, so here DI is useful. But does it make sense to inject utility window classes into other window classes? Example: I have classes such as: class MainWindow {…} class AddItemWindow {…} class AddAttachmentWindow {…} class BrowseItemsWindow {…} class QueryBuilderWindow {…} class QueryBrowserWindow {…} class PreferencesWindow {…} … Each of the utility classes can be opened from MainWindow. Some utility windows can also be opened from other utility windows. Generally, there might be a really complex graph of who can open whom. So each of those classes might need quite a lot of other window classes injected. I'm worried that such usage will go against the suggestion not to inject too many classes at once and become a code smell. Should I use some kind of a service locator object here?

  Read the article

• Acceptable placement of the composition root using dependency injection and inversion of control containers

  - by Lumirris

  I've read in several sources including Mark Seemann's 'Ploeh' blog about how the appropriate placement of the composition root of an IoC container is as close as possible to the entry point of an application. In the .NET world, these applications seem to be commonly thought of as Web projects, WPF projects, console applications, things with a typical UI (read: not library projects). Is it really going against this sage advice to place the composition root at the entry point of a library project, when it represents the logical entry point of a group of library projects, and the client of a project group such as this is someone else's work, whose author can't or won't add the composition root to their project (a UI project or yet another library project, even)? I'm familiar with Ninject as an IoC container implementation, but I imagine many others work the same way in that they can scan for a module containing all the necessary binding configurations. This means I could put a binding module in its own library project to compile with my main library project's output, and if the client wanted to change the configuration (an unlikely scenario in my case), they could drop in a replacement dll to replace the library with the binding module. This seems to avoid the most common clients having to deal with dependency injection and composition roots at all, and would make for the cleanest API for the library project group. Yet this seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom on the issue. Is it just that most of the advice out there makes the assumption that the developer has some coordination with the development of the UI project(s) as well, rather than my case, in which I'm just developing libraries for others to use?

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection and method signatures

  - by sunwukung

  I've been using YADIF (yet another dependency injection framework) in a PHP/Zend app I'm working on to handle dependencies. This has achieved some notable benefits in terms of testing and decoupling classes. However,one thing that strikes me is that despite the sleight of hand performed when using this technique, the method names impart a degree of coupling. Probably not the best example -but these methods are distinct from ... say the PEAR Mailer. The method names themselves are a (subtle) form of coupling //example public function __construct($dic){ $this->dic = $dic; } public function example(){ //this line in itself indicates the YADIF origin of the DIC $Mail= $dic->getComponent('mail'); $Mail->setBodyText($body); $Mail->setFrom($from); $Mail->setSubject($subject); } I could write a series of proxies/wrappers to hide these methods and thus promote decoupling from , but this seems a bit excessive. You have to balance purity with pragmatism... How far would you go to hide the dependencies in your classes?

  Read the article

• Constructor Injection and when to use a Service Locator

  - by Simon

  I'm struggling to understand parts of StructureMap's usage. In particular, in the documentation a statement is made regarding a common anti-pattern, the use of StructureMap as a Service Locator only instead of constructor injection (code samples straight from Structuremap documentation): public ShippingScreenPresenter() { _service = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IShippingService>(); _repository = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IRepository>(); } instead of: public ShippingScreenPresenter(IShippingService service, IRepository repository) { _service = service; _repository = repository; } This is fine for a very short object graph, but when dealing with objects many levels deep, does this imply that you should pass down all the dependencies required by the deeper objects right from the top? Surely this breaks encapsulation and exposes too much information about the implementation of deeper objects. Let's say I'm using the Active Record pattern, so my record needs access to a data repository to be able to save and load itself. If this record is loaded inside an object, does that object call ObjectFactory.CreateInstance() and pass it into the active record's constructor? What if that object is inside another object. Does it take the IRepository in as its own parameter from further up? That would expose to the parent object the fact that we're access the data repository at this point, something the outer object probably shouldn't know. public class OuterClass { public OuterClass(IRepository repository) { // Why should I know that ThingThatNeedsRecord needs a repository? // that smells like exposed implementation to me, especially since // ThingThatNeedsRecord doesn't use the repo itself, but passes it // to the record. // Also where do I create repository? Have to instantiate it somewhere // up the chain of objects ThingThatNeedsRecord thing = new ThingThatNeedsRecord(repository); thing.GetAnswer("question"); } } public class ThingThatNeedsRecord { public ThingThatNeedsRecord(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public string GetAnswer(string someParam) { // create activeRecord(s) and process, returning some result // part of which contains: ActiveRecord record = new ActiveRecord(repository, key); } private IRepository repository; } public class ActiveRecord { public ActiveRecord(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public ActiveRecord(IRepository repository, int primaryKey); { this.repositry = repository; Load(primaryKey); } public void Save(); private void Load(int primaryKey) { this.primaryKey = primaryKey; // access the database via the repository and set someData } private IRepository repository; private int primaryKey; private string someData; } Any thoughts would be appreciated. Simon

  Read the article

• Dependency injection with n-tier Entity Framework solution

  - by Matthew

  I am currently designing an n-tier solution which is using Entity Framework 5 (.net 4) as its data access strategy, but am concerned about how to incorporate dependency injection to make it testable / flexible. My current solution layout is as follows (my solution is called Alcatraz): Alcatraz.WebUI: An asp.net webform project, the front end user interface, references projects Alcatraz.Business and Alcatraz.Data.Models. Alcatraz.Business: A class library project, contains the business logic, references projects Alcatraz.Data.Access, Alcatraz.Data.Models Alcatraz.Data.Access: A class library project, houses AlcatrazModel.edmx and AlcatrazEntities DbContext, references projects Alcatraz.Data.Models. Alcatraz.Data.Models: A class library project, contains POCOs for the Alcatraz model, no references. My vision for how this solution would work is the web-ui would instantiate a repository within the business library, this repository would have a dependency (through the constructor) of a connection string (not an AlcatrazEntities instance). The web-ui would know the database connection strings, but not that it was an entity framework connection string. In the Business project: public class InmateRepository : IInmateRepository { private string _connectionString; public InmateRepository(string connectionString) { if (connectionString == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("connectionString"); } EntityConnectionStringBuilder connectionBuilder = new EntityConnectionStringBuilder(); connectionBuilder.Metadata = "res://*/AlcatrazModel.csdl|res://*/AlcatrazModel.ssdl|res://*/AlcatrazModel.msl"; connectionBuilder.Provider = "System.Data.SqlClient"; connectionBuilder.ProviderConnectionString = connectionString; _connectionString = connectionBuilder.ToString(); } public IQueryable<Inmate> GetAllInmates() { AlcatrazEntities ents = new AlcatrazEntities(_connectionString); return ents.Inmates; } } In the Web UI: IInmateRepository inmateRepo = new InmateRepository(@"data source=MATTHEW-PC\SQLEXPRESS;initial catalog=Alcatraz;integrated security=True;"); List<Inmate> deathRowInmates = inmateRepo.GetAllInmates().Where(i => i.OnDeathRow).ToList(); I have a few related questions about this design. 1) Does this design even make sense in terms of Entity Frameworks capabilities? I heard that Entity framework uses the Unit-of-work pattern already, am I just adding another layer of abstract unnecessarily? 2) I don't want my web-ui to directly communicate with Entity Framework (or even reference it for that matter), I want all database access to go through the business layer as in the future I will have multiple projects using the same business layer (web service, windows application, etc.) and I want to have it easy to maintain / update by having the business logic in one central area. Is this an appropriate way to achieve this? 3) Should the Business layer even contain repositories, or should that be contained within the Access layer? If where they are is alright, is passing a connection string a good dependency to assume? Thanks for taking the time to read!

  Read the article

• How to handle "circular dependency" in dependency injection

  - by Roel

  The title says "Circular Dependency", but it is not the correct wording, because to me the design seems solid. However, consider the following scenario, where the blue parts are given from external partner, and orange is my own implementation. Also assume there is more then one ConcreteMain, but I want to use a specific one. (In reality, each class has some more dependencies, but I tried to simplify it here) I would like to instanciate all of this with Depency Injection (Unity), but I obviously get a StackOverflowException on the following code, because Runner tries to instantiate ConcreteMain, and ConcreteMain needs a Runner. IUnityContainer ioc = new UnityContainer(); ioc.RegisterType<IMain, ConcreteMain>() .RegisterType<IMainCallback, Runner>(); var runner = ioc.Resolve<Runner>(); How can I avouid this? Is there any way to structure this so that I can use it with DI? The scenario I'm doing now is setting everything up manually, but that puts a hard dependency on ConcreteMain in the class which instantiates it. This is what i'm trying to avoid (with Unity registrations in configuration). All source code below (very simplified example!); public class Program { public static void Main(string[] args) { IUnityContainer ioc = new UnityContainer(); ioc.RegisterType<IMain, ConcreteMain>() .RegisterType<IMainCallback, Runner>(); var runner = ioc.Resolve<Runner>(); Console.WriteLine("invoking runner..."); runner.DoSomethingAwesome(); Console.ReadLine(); } } public class Runner : IMainCallback { private readonly IMain mainServer; public Runner(IMain mainServer) { this.mainServer = mainServer; } public void DoSomethingAwesome() { Console.WriteLine("trying to do something awesome"); mainServer.DoSomething(); } public void SomethingIsDone(object something) { Console.WriteLine("hey look, something is finally done."); } } public interface IMain { void DoSomething(); } public interface IMainCallback { void SomethingIsDone(object something); } public abstract class AbstractMain : IMain { protected readonly IMainCallback callback; protected AbstractMain(IMainCallback callback) { this.callback = callback; } public abstract void DoSomething(); } public class ConcreteMain : AbstractMain { public ConcreteMain(IMainCallback callback) : base(callback){} public override void DoSomething() { Console.WriteLine("starting to do something..."); var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>{ Thread.Sleep(5000);/*very long running task*/ }); task.ContinueWith(t => callback.SomethingIsDone(true)); } }

  Read the article

• Dependency injection: How to sell it

  - by Mel

  Let it be known that I am a big fan of dependency injection (DI) and automated testing. I could talk all day about it. Background Recently, our team just got this big project that is to built from scratch. It is a strategic application with complex business requirements. Of course, I wanted it to be nice and clean, which for me meant: maintainable and testable. So I wanted to use DI. Resistance The problem was in our team, DI is taboo. It has been brought up a few times, but the gods do not approve. But that did not discourage me. My Move This may sound weird but third-party libraries are usually not approved by our architect team (think: "thou shalt not speak of Unity, Ninject, NHibernate, Moq or NUnit, lest I cut your finger"). So instead of using an established DI container, I wrote an extremely simple container. It basically wired up all your dependencies on startup, injects any dependencies (constructor/property) and disposed any disposable objects at the end of the web request. It was extremely lightweight and just did what we needed. And then I asked them to review it. The Response Well, to make it short. I was met with heavy resistance. The main argument was, "We don't need to add this layer of complexity to an already complex project". Also, "It's not like we will be plugging in different implementations of components". And "We want to keep it simple, if possible just stuff everything into one assembly. DI is an uneeded complexity with no benefit". Finally, My Question How would you handle my situation? I am not good in presenting my ideas, and I would like to know how people would present their argument. Of course, I am assuming that like me, you prefer to use DI. If you don't agree, please do say why so I can see the other side of the coin. It would be really interesting to see the point of view of someone who disagrees. Update Thank you for everyone's answers. It really puts things into perspective. It's nice enough to have another set of eyes to give you feedback, fifteen is really awesome! This are really great answers and helped me see the issue from different sides, but I can only choose one answer, so I will just pick the top voted one. Thanks everyone for taking the time to answer. I have decided that it is probably not the best time to implement DI, and we are not ready for it. Instead, I will concentrate my efforts on making the design testable and attempt to present automated unit testing. I am aware that writing tests is additional overhead and if ever it is decided that the additional overhead is not worth it, personally I would still see it as a win situation since the design is still testable. And if ever testing or DI is a choice in future, the design can easily handle it.

  Read the article

• Is functional intellisense and code browsing more beneficial than the use of dependency injection containers

  - by Gavin Howden

  This question is really based on PHP, but could be valid for other dynamically typed, interpreted languages and specifically the methods of generating code insight and object browsing in development environments. We use PHPStorm, and find intellisense invaluable, but it is provided by some limited static analysis and parsing of doc comments. Obviously this does not lend well to obtaining dependencies through a container, as the IDE has no idea of the type returned, so the developer loses out on a plethora of (in the case of our framework anyway) rich documentation provided through the doc comments. So we start to see stuff like this: $widget = $dic->YieldInstance('WidgetA', $arg1, $arg2, $arg3, $arg4...)); /** * @var $widget WidgetA */ So that code insight works. In effect the comments are tightly bound, but worse they come out of sync when code is modified but not the comments: $widget = $dic->YieldInstance('WidgetB', $arg1, $arg2, $arg3, $arg4...)); /** * @var $widget WidgetA */ Obviously the comment could be improved by referencing a Widget interface, but then we might as well use a factory and avoid the requirement for the extra typing hints in the comments, and dic complexity / boiler plating. Which is more important to the average developer, code insight / intellisense or 'nirvana' decouplement?

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection/IoC container practices when writing frameworks

  - by Dave Hillier

  I've used various IoC containers (Castle.Windsor, Autofac, MEF, etc) for .Net in a number of projects. I have found they tend to encourage a number of bad practices. Are there any established practices for IoC container use, particularly when providing a platform/framework? My aim as a framework writer is to make code as simple and as easy to use as possible. I'd rather write one line of code to construct an object than ten or even just two. For example, a couple of code smells that I've noticed and don't have good suggestions to: Large number of parameters (5) for constructors. Creating services tends to be complex; all of the dependencies are injected via the constructor - despite the fact that the components are rarely optional (except for maybe in testing). Lack of private and internal classes; this one may be a specific limitation of using C# and Silverlight, but I'm interested in how it is solved. It's difficult to tell what a frameworks interface is if all the classes are public; it allows me access to private parts that I probably shouldnt touch. Coupling the object lifecycle to the IoC container. It is often difficult to manually construct the dependencies required to create objects. Object lifecycle is too often managed by the IoC framework. I've seen projects where most classes are registered as Singletons. You get a lack of explicit control and are also forced to manage the internals (it relates to the above point, all classes are public and you have to inject them). For example, .Net framework has many static methods. such as, DateTime.UtcNow. Many times I have seen this wrapped and injected as a construction parameter. Depending on concrete implementation makes my code hard to test. Injecting a dependency makes my code hard to use - particularly if the class has many parameters. How do I provide both a testable interface, as well as one that is easy to use? What are the best practices?

  Read the article

• Customizing configuration with Dependency Injection

  - by mathieu

  I'm designing a small application infrastructure library, aiming to simplify development of ASP.NET MVC based applications. Main goal is to enforce convention over configuration. Hovewer, I still want to make some parts "configurable" by developpers. I'm leaning towards the following design: public interface IConfiguration { SomeType SomeValue; } // this one won't get registered in container protected class DefaultConfiguration : IConfiguration { public SomeType SomeValue { get { return SomeType.Default; } } } // declared inside 3rd party library, will get registered in container protected class CustomConfiguration : IConfiguration { public SomeType SomeValue { get { return SomeType.Custom; } } } And the "service" class : public class Service { private IConfiguration conf = new DefaultConfiguration(); // optional dependency, if found, will be set to CustomConfiguration by DI container public IConfiguration Conf { get { return conf; } set { conf = value; } } public void Configure() { DoSomethingWith( Conf ); } } There, the "configuration" part is clearly a dependency of the service class, but it this an "overuse" of DI ?

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection: Only for single-instance objects?

  - by HappyDeveloper

  What if I want to also decouple my application, from classes like Product or User? (which usually have more than one instance) Take a look at this example: class Controller { public function someAction() { $product_1 = new Product(); $product_2 = new Product(); // do something with the products } } Is it right to say that Controller now depends on Product? I was thinking that we could decouple them too (as we would with single-instance objects like Database) In this example, however ugly, they are decoupled: class Controller { public function someAction(ProductInterface $new_product) { $product_1 = clone $new_product; $product_2 = clone $new_product; // do something with the products } } Has anyone done something like this before? Is it excessive?

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >