Open Generics and Autofac 2.3

Autofac 2.3 hit the shelves more than three months ago but as it coincided pretty closely with the birth of our daughter Vera I didn’t write much about it at the time.

One improvement worth mentioning is the much-expanded support for open generic components, contributed by Rikard Pavelic. I answered a recent question on the Autofac mailing list with “it can’t be done” only to find later that the scenario being discussed was already supported. Though fairly unusual, it is an interesting feature so I’ll describe it below, but first the less exotic cases.

Generic Parameter Constraints

C# allows the arguments of a generic type to apply constraints that parameters must match. For example, we might constrain an event handler implementation to a type of event:

interface IEventHandler<in TEvent> {
    void Handle(TEvent @event);
}

In this small example we have an interface that helps us dispatch event objects to handlers. Typically there would be one or more handlers for each event type, most of them specific to the kind of event. We also have a marker interface for events that should trigger some kind of auditing, and a handler that will make this happen.

interface IAuditableEvent { }

class AuditingEventHandler<TEvent> : IEventHandler<TEvent>
        where TEvent : IAuditableEvent {
    void Handle(TEvent @event) {
       // Write an audit record…
    }
}

Note that the handler uses a generic type constraint to select the kind of events it is interested in. Some events will be auditable, others not:

class ItemAddedToCartEvent { }

class CheckoutCompletedEvent : IAuditableEvent { }

The AuditingEventHandler<TEvent> will be registered as an open generic type.

var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterGeneric(typeof(AuditingEventHandler<>))
    .As(typeof(IEventHandler<>));
var container = builder.Build();

Assuming that we’ve registered all of the different event handlers for the above two events, what should happen when we resolve all of the handlers for ItemAddedToCartEvent?

var handlers = container.Resolve<IEnumerable<IEventHandler<ItemAddedToCartEvent>>>();

The AuditingEventHandler<TEvent> component is registered to provide the IEventHandler<TEvent> service, but the generic type constraint doesn’t match. In earlier versions of Autofac, the above line would have raised an exception.

With support for open generic parameter constraints, Autofac will now instantiate only the types whose constraints match, so the handlers collection above would be returned successfully without any attempt to instantiate the AuditingEventHandler<TEvent>.

If instead an auditable event is to be handled, then the auditing handler would be included:

// Succeeds and returns an AuditingEventHandler<CheckoutCompletedEvent>
var handlers = container.Resolve<IEnumerable<IEventHandler<CheckoutCompletedEvent>>>();

Constraint Types

Autofac 2.3 handles all of the generic parameter constraints you’re likely to encounter, including:

  • new()
  • class and struct
  • Base type and implemented interfaces

Parameter Binding Solver

Open generic types are more subtle and complicated to support than they sometimes appear. Take this contrived but not unimaginable example:

class MonoDictionary<T> : IDictionary<T,T> { }

The generic parameter T appears twice in the parameter list of the implemented IDictionary<TKey,TValue>! That means if we register MonoDictionary<T>:

builder.RegisterGeneric(typeof(MonoDictionary<>))
    .As(typeof(IDictionary<,>));

Then we should be able to resolve IDictionary<int,int> but not IDictionary<int,string>. Tricky – but as of version 2.3, Autofac can handle it.

The example we discussed on the Autofac mailing list was something like:

interface IProducer<T> { }

class NullableProducer<T> : IProducer<T?>
    where T : struct { }

The twist here is that the generic component NullableProducer<T> does not parameterise IProducer<T> directly with T, but rather Nullable<T> (abbreviated to T?).

This means that if we resolve IProducer<int?> then NullableProducer<int> should be activated, while resolving IProducer<int> should ignore NullableProducer<T> altogether.

Autofac 2.3 also supports this case, with some terse but surprisingly succinct code. Hopefully this will open up some new, richer generic component possibilities.

Coming in Autofac 2.3 – OnRelease()

Most components that need to be cleaned up implement IDisposable, which Autofac will use when the component is due to be released. Some components however, notably WCF client proxies, have non-standard ‘release’ behaviour.

There have never been enough cases of these non-standard components to justify messing with the Autofac core model to provide custom release behaviours, so for some time (six major versions, in fact) this hasn’t been added.

Happily, for WCF proxies and other components like them, a simple implementation has been found that allows a custom release action to be piggy-backed on a regular disposable component, so in Autofac 2.3 (currently in preview) we’ll be offering OnRelease() for the first time:

builder.Register(c => CreateWcfClient())
    .As<IClient>()
    .OnRelease(client => ReleaseWcfClient(client));

Simple addition – hopefully a pleasant improvement in these scenarios.

For the curious, WCF client proxies require that calls to Dispose() be wrapped in try/catch blocks so that exceptions during disposal don’t obscure any other exceptions thrown during the use of the proxy itself. Not fun stuff, but relax, the Autofac.Integration.Wcf assembly now includes an implementation of UseWcfSafeRelease() as well.

Speaking at Tech.Ed Next Week

Just a quick note for anyone who happens to be visiting Tech.Ed on the Gold Coast next week. I’ll be presenting a session at 11:00 AM Thursday with the vague and unfortunately grandiose title DEV426: The Art and Engineering of Supple Enterprise Applications. Fear not – that’ where the abstraction ends; we’ll be digging into the concrete and sometimes gritty details of “programming in the large” with IoC. There should be something for veterans and newbies alike – I hope you can make it!

The IIndex<K,V> Relationship Type

Component metadata, which is consumed via the Lazy<T,M>, Meta<M> or Meta<T,M> relationship types, gives us a way to choose between available components based on some criteria:

class Browser
{
    IEnumerable<Lazy<IViewer, IViewerMetadata>> _viewers;
   
    public Browser(IEnumerable<Lazy<IViewer, IViewerMetadata>> viewers)
    {
        _viewers = viewers;
    }
   
    public void OnViewFile(string filename)
    {
        var ext = Path.GetExtension(filename);
        var viewer = _viewers.Single(v => v.Metadata.FileTypes.Contains(ext));
        viewer.Value.View(filename);
    }
}

Components are selected by examining the metadata associated with them. When fast lookup is required this technique is not optimal, because unless an index is built by hand, choosing a component based on metadata requires a linear search.

One of the goals of the “relationship types” approach, of which metadata is an example, is to provide a way to consume the services of an IoC container without falling back to the problematic Service Locator pattern. Requiring an O(n) lookup in the process seems unreasonable when there is a large number of components, as Service Locators can do much better.

To address this situation, Autofac provides the Autofac.Features.Indexed.IIndex<K,V> type. In Autofac 2.3 some work has been done to better integrate this into the container, so now seems like a good time to explain in more detail how it works.

Objects as Keys

For at least as long as I’ve been using them, IoC containers have supported two primary ways of looking up a component. The most common is by type:

builder.Register<Renderer>().As<IRenderer>();
// then
var r = container.Resolve<IRenderer>();

The other is by name (or by name-and-type):

builder.Register<FastRenderer>().Named<IRenderer>("Fast");
// then
var fr = container.Resolve<IRenderer>("Fast");

Resolving by name and type drives all sorts of common IoC scenarios – finding handlers for messages, controllers for routes and so-on.

Autofac stuck to this model, but down the track I realised that requiring the use of a string for the key is unnecessary. Consider the case where magic strings are eliminated elsewhere in the application in favour of an enum:

enum RenderSpeed { Slow, Fast }

Using this enum with the string-based component selection API is clunky:

builder.Register<FastRenderer>()
    .Named<IRenderer>(RenderSpeed.Fast.ToString());
// then
var fr = container.Resolve<IRenderer>(RenderSpeed.Fast.ToString());

The ToString() calls can easily be eliminated by accepting arbitrary objects, here the enum values, as keys. The above code becomes:

builder.Register<FastRenderer>()
    .Keyed<IRenderer>(RenderSpeed.Fast);
// then
var fr = container.Resolve<IRenderer>(RenderSpeed.Fast);

In many situations where components are to be selected, there’s a better key type than string, so the addition of Keyed() is one I’ve been happy with.

Looking-up Keyed Services with an Index

The examples so far use Resolve() for the purposes of illustration; there’s a better way to use keys, and that’s via IIndex<K,V>.

public interface IIndex<TKey, TValue>
{
    TValue this[TKey key] { get; }
    bool TryGetValue(TKey key, out TValue value);
}

This type is an adapter provided automatically by the container, just as the other relationship types are. It is parameterised by the type of the key and the type of the implementation.

This example is taken from a recent question about the State Pattern on StackOverflow – you can see some of the context over there.

public class Modem : IHardwareDevice
{
    IIndex<DeviceState, IDeviceState> _states;
    IDeviceState _currentState;

    public Modem(IIndex<DeviceState, IDeviceState> states)
    {
         _states = states;
         SwitchOn();
    }

    void SwitchOn()
    {
         _currentState = _states[DeviceState.Online];
    }
}

In the SwitchOn() method, the index is used to find the implementation of IDeviceState that was registered with the DeviceState.Online key.

Isn’t this a kind of Service Locator, anyway?

I was at first a little hesitant to go down this path because of the apparent similarity between looking up implementations with an index and using a Service Locator.

To cut a long story short, there’s only a superficial likeness. The important differences between this and the Service Locator approach are:

  • An index is selective, both about the kind of thing being looked up and the meaning of the key; most issues with Service Locators come from them being too broad, and I don’t think that is the case here
  • IIndex<K,V> is a subset of IDictionary<K,V> so if you’re going to go after indexes in your anti-Service-Locator rampage then you’ll have to wipe out your dictionaries, too

Still, feel free to get in there and flame me if you think this is heretical.

Why not IQueryable<T>, or ILookup<K,V>?

There’s a type in .NET 3.5 called ILookup<K,V> that could have fulfilled the role of IIndex<K,V> but unfortunately it assumes that all of the keys can be enumerated. IIndex<K,V> isn’t an enumerable type, because in order to provide that on top of Autofac’s component model, all the possible key values would need to be known by the container in advance.

IQueryable<T> is another candidate for providing optimised lookup. The essential technique would be to use it in combination with metadata, in the same way that IEnumerable<T> is used, but to build and use indexes behind the scenes to ‘smartly’ handle the expression trees corresponding to the selection predicates. Now, just to explain this is getting complicated; as attractive as this option might seem, the implementation complexity is so hideously huge by comparison that I don’t think we could ever expect it to be stable.

Conclusions

Metadata is a very flexible and elegant mechanism; it enables a much richer dependency model than keys and indexes, and supports more scenarios. Indexes and keys have their own place though, and I’d expect that if you add them to your Autofac toolbox you’ll find them useful more than once.

Simplifying ‘Configuration by Exception’

Given an assembly containing components, most of them will have similar configuration requirements. A simple assembly scanning statement usually applies to 90% of them:

Assembly componentsAssembly = // ...

var builder = new ContainerBuilder();

builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(componentsAssembly)
    .AsImplementedInterfaces();

Now, the annoying thing is – what if one of those components needs to be scoped per-HTTP-request?

In Autofac 2.1, you could exclude it explicitly and then perform configuration separately:

builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(componentsAssembly)
    .AsImplementedInterfaces()
    .Except<LocalCache>();

builder.RegisterType<LocalCache>()
    .As<ICache>()
    .HttpRequestScoped();

I wouldn’t say the repetition here is too bad, but over a larger assembly the separation between the Except() clause and the subsequent registration makes the code harder to follow and thus maintain.

Autofac’s scanning feature is new in version 2, and is slowly evolving towards a minimal syntax. In the latest release, version 2.2, the configuration of an excepted component can be done in-place:

builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(componentsAssembly)
    .AsImplementedInterfaces()
    .Except<LocalCache>(cache =>
        cache.As<ICache>()
             .HttpRequestScoped();
    );

The configuration for the excepted component doesn’t inherit any of the configuration from the outer scanning operation, hence it is necessary to specify the services it will provide despite the AsImplementedInterfaces() clause in the scanning statement. While I think it would be more concise to specify only the differences between the explicitly-configured component and the rest of the scanning operation, override rules tend to bring a lot of subtle complexities with them and so they’re avoided here.

Autofac 2.2 Released

It’s that time again! There are some great features from the original plan still in the pipeline, but the completed work is important to some users so binaries for Autofac 2.2 have been made available on the Autofac site.

What’s new?

Version 2.2 is highly backwards-compatible with 2.1. Along with many small improvements, the significant additions in the new version are the return of a mutable container model, support for ASP.NET MVC 2.0 and lightweight adapters.

ContainerBuilder.Update() and full container mutability

One of the most controversial changes to Autofac in the 2.1 release was the deliberate omission of an easy way to add more components to an already-built container. The reasons for and against this are worth a blog post on their own, but in the end it turns out that integration into third-party frameworks is especially tough without this feature.

To add components to an existing container, use ContainerBuilder.Update():

var container = // something already built

var updater = new ContainerBuilder();
updater.RegisterType<A>();
updater.Register(c => new B()).As<IB>();

// Add the registrations to the container
updater.Update(container);

Configuration this way is often much harder to follow than a simple ‘register then build’ style, so again, use this feature only where necessary.

ASP.NET MVC 2.0 support

The new release is built against the ASP.NET MVC 2 binaries; you’ll have to compile from source if you want to target ASP.NET MVC 1. There can’t be many projects out there that can upgrade to Autofac 2.2, but not to the new release of ASP.NET MVC, so we expect this will be convenient for most users.

Out of the box, Autofac now supports ASP.NET MVC Areas, and integration with other ASP.NET MVC features is getting richer.

The AutofacControllerFactory policies have changed in this release, so if you previously added controllers by hand (as named services) you will need to update your code to register controllers by their concrete type (without an As() or Named() configuration clause..)

Lightweight adapters

Lightweight adapters are an easy way of expressing “for every registered X, provide an adapter of type Y.”
adapters

The introductory article is the best place to find out how this feature works.

Other changes

  • COM interfaces using No-PIA (or ‘ embedded interop types‘) can now be exposed as services
  • Simplified WCF configuration for self-hosted services
  • Scoped registration improvements: SingleInstance() now behaves as expected and binds the instance’s lifetime to the nested scope
  • Generic registration constraint checking improvements – more complex type constraints can now be handled when determining the suitability of an open generic type to satisfy a closed generic service
  • Additional Resolve()/TryResolve() convenience overloads have been added to fill some gaps
  • The same type can now be registered multiple times in a single XML configuration block
  • Several usability enhancements have been made to the scanning feature

Credits

This release, as with every Autofac release, is the product of the lively (and growing) community. There have been some especially fine patches and contributions this time around – thank you everyone for your hard work!

Lightweight Adaptation – Coming Soon

The type-to-type mapping of an IoC container obscures the fact that in reality, IoC configuration describes object graphs.

Perhaps this is why it is sometimes difficult to reason about how component instances will come together at runtime?

The problem dealt with in this article fits this description – a simple object graph that is unintuitive to build with a typical container.

Back to the Gang of Four…

The classic “Gang of Four”-style Adapter pattern ‘adapts the interface of one class to another’.
Common scenarios where adapter-like structures appear are, for example:

  • where a wrapper is needed in order to work efficiently with an underlying abstraction;
  • between different representations of the same thing, e.g. the endless variations on ILog; or,
  • between corresponding elements in different logical models

We’ll use a fairly broad definition of the pattern, in the context of an image editing application.

one-to-one

A ToolbarButton has an ICommand that is invoked when the button is clicked. ToolbarButton is an adapter for ICommand that allows the command to be invoked from the user interface.

Here we’ve attached an instance of ToolbarButton to an instance of SaveCommand, which implements ICommand. The classes are:

public interface ICommand
{
    void Execute();
}

public class SaveCommand : ICommand
{
    public void Execute()
    {
        // Save the current image
    }
}

public class ToolbarButton
{
    ICommand _command;
    public ToolbarButton(ICommand command)
    {
        _command = command;
    }
    public void Click()
    {
        _command.Execute();
    }
}

So… from an IoC perspective, what is interesting about this example?

Adapting Multiple Implementations

An application has more than one kind of command. An image editor may have Save, Open and a whole host of other commands:

PaintDotNETToolbar
But, even though all of the command implementations are the different, the widget representing them on the user interface is implemented by the same component.

To bring the example together let’s add an EditorWindow that accepts all of the toolbar buttons as an enumerable dependency.

public class EditorWindow
{
    public EditorWindow(IEnumerable<ToolbarButton> toolbarButtons)
    {
        // Left to the reader’s imagination
    }
}

Our intention here is that for each ICommand in the container, a ToolbarButton will be created to wrap it, and all of these will be passed along to the EditorWindow via the IEnumerable<T> relationship type .

These might be registered with Autofac in the following way:

var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<SaveCommand>().As<ICommand>();
builder.RegisterType<OpenCommand>().As<ICommand>();
builder.RegisterType<ToolbarButton>();
builder.RegisterType<EditorWindow>();
using (var container = builder.Build())
{
    var window = container.Resolve<EditorWindow>();
    window.Show();
}

Yet, there is something wrong. The static structure of our code is correct, but as I lamented earlier, the object graph isn’t what we expect.

The problem is that, as far as the container is concerned, there is only one ToolbarButton component. This will be initialised with whatever happens to be the default implementation of ICommand. Autofac’s last-in-wins policy means that OpenCommand will be used as the default implementation of ICommand, and SaveCommand will be ignored.

nonadapted

This happens because the container builds object graphs top-down; first it looks for ToolbarButton, then it looks for an ICommand to satisfy its dependencies.

Registering Adapters

What we’d really like is to create multiple ToolbarButtons, each attached to a different underlying ICommand implementation.

adapters

To configure this, Autofac 2.2 essentially lets us switch the composition of ToolbarButton from top-down to bottom-up. First we find all of the ICommand implementations, and then we construct a ToolbarButton for each.

Configuration of the container is the same as before, except we change:

builder.RegisterType<ToolbarButton>();

to:

builder.RegisterAdapter<ICommand, ToolbarButton>(cmd => new ToolbarButton(cmd));

The RegisterAdapter() method takes two types as parameters: the service to adapt from, and the component type to adapt to.

Autowiring isn’t supported for the adapter component in this scenario (yet), so we include a lambda expression describing how the adapter is constructed given one of the adapted instances.

Overloads of RegisterAdapter() exist for passing in parameters and an IComponentContext from which the adapter’s other dependencies can be resolved if necessary.

Aside: @joshuamck suggested an alternative syntax that I’d also considered, along the lines of builder.RegisterType<ToolbarButton>().Adapting<ICommand>(). I think this is more in line with the intent of Autofac’s builder syntax, so depending on how the implementation goes we might see this in the 2.2 release version.

Composing with Metadata

In the example, commands can be given metadata to allow the command name to be displayed on the button.

First the commands are given names:

builder.RegisterType<SaveCommand>()
    .As<ICommand>()
    .WithMetadata("Name", "Save File");
builder.RegisterType<OpenCommand>()
    .As<ICommand>()
    .WithMetadata("Name", "Open File");

Then, the name parameter is added to the ToolbarButton constructor and the metadata is consumed:

builder.RegisterAdapter<Meta<ICommand>, ToolbarButton>(cmd =>
    new ToolbarButton(cmd.Value, (string)cmd.Metadata["Name"]));

Adapters, like other relationship types in Autofac, compose nicely with each other as the use of Meta<T> shows.

Wrapping Up*

*Excuse this terrible pun.

Lightweight adapters are a nice little helper coming in Autofac 2.2. While these scenarios don’t arise every day, when they do, container support is very convenient.

Download an example (including an Autofac 2.2 preview build) here.

Autofac 2.1 on Talking Shop Down Under

Richard Banks was kind enough to interview me on Episode 8 of Talking Shop Down Under.

If you’re interested in some of the ideas behind the new Autofac 2.1 release, be sure to check out the podcast!

Introducing Autofac 2.1 RTW

After nearly two years of experimentation, design and development, Autofac’s second major release is here!

Autofac 2.1 is still the IoC container you know and love, but reorganised so that Autofac 1.4′s strengths — especially in providing a low-friction developer experience — really shine.

You can download the binaries here, or read on for some of the feature highlights.

Component Discovery

Otherwise known as convention-driven registration or scanning, Autofac 2 can register a set of types from an assembly according to user-specified rules:

var dataAccess = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly();

builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(dataAccess)
    .Where(t => t.Name.EndsWith("Repository"))
    .AsImplementedInterfaces();

The registration syntax for RegisterAssemblyTypes() is a superset of the registration syntax for single types, so methods like As<T>() all work with assemblies as well, and there’s very little extra API to learn.

Relationship Types

When working with IoC you frequently hear advice against passing the container around or resolving components from it directly. Where dynamic relationships are concerned, for example deferred creation, selection from alternatives or parameterisation, there has historically been very little guidance on the alternatives.

Autofac addresses this by automatically supporting small, focused, strongly-typed wrappers that express dynamic dependencies.

For example, instead of calling IContainer.Resolve<IDownloader>(), a WebCrawler component that needs to create instances of a downloader on-the-fly can take a dependency on Func<IDownloader> and the container will provide it automatically so long as IDownloader is registered.

class WebCrawler : IWebCrawler
{
    Func<Uri, IDownloader> _downloaderFactory;
   
    public WebCrawler (Func<Uri, IDownloader> downloaderFactory)
    {
        _downloaderFactory = downloaderFactory;
    }

    public void Crawl()
    {
        var downloader = _downloaderFactory(new Uri("http://autofac.org"));
        foreach (var link in downloader.OutboundLinks)
            // ...
    }
}

As the example shows, you can pass parameters (in this case a Uri) that will be forwarded to the target component’s constructor.

Autofac 2 supports an extensive vocabulary of relationship types that the container understands and provides automatically based on the other available components.

Relationship Adapter Type Meaning
A needs a B None Dependency
A needs a B at some point in the future Lazy<B> Delayed instantiation
A needs a B until some point in the future Owned<B> Controlled lifetime
A needs to create instances of B Func<B> Dynamic instantiation
A provides parameters of types X and Y to B Func<X,Y,B> Parameterisation
A needs all the kinds of B IEnumerable<B> Enumeration
A needs to know X about B before using it Meta<T> and Meta<B,X> Metadata interrogation

For more information on relationship types, see the introductory article.

Component Metadata

If you’re familiar with the Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF) you have probably seen examples using component metadata.

Autofac uses the underlying support in .NET 4.0 to provide similar functionality. Metadata is associated with a component either in code:

builder.Register(c => new ScreenAppender())
    .As<ILogAppender>()
    .WithMetadata("AppenderName", "screen");

Or in XML:

<component
   type="MyApp.Components.Logging.ScreenAppender, MyApp"
   service="MyApp.Services.Logging.ILogAppender, MyApp" >
    <metadata>
        <item name="AppenderName" value="screen" type="System.String" />
    </metadata>
</component>

Unlike a regular property, a metadata item can be queried and used without requiring an instance of the component to be created.

This makes it useful when selecting one of many components based on runtime criteria; or, where the metadata isn’t intrinsic to the component implementation. Metadata could represent the time that an ITask should run, or the button caption for an ICommand.

Other components can consume metadata using the System.Lazy<T,TMetadata> type.

public class Log
{
    readonly IEnumerable<Lazy<ILogAppender, ILogAppenderMetadata>> _appenders;

    public Log(IEnumerable<Lazy<ILogAppender, ILogAppenderMetadata>> appenders)
    {
        _appenders = appenders;
    }

    public void Write(string destination, string message)
    {
        var appender = _appenders.First(a => a.Metadata.AppenderName == destination);
        appender.Value.Write(message);
    }
}

In .NET 3.5 (as well as 4.0) Autofac 2 provides the weakly typed Meta<T> class for consuming metadata as a dictionary.

Managed Extensibilty Framework Integration

MEF introduces a standard API for creating extensible applications in .NET 4.0. If your Autofac-based application has extensibility points, plugin developers can use the MEF attributes to mark up their extensions, while internally they can be hosted in the Autofac container just like any other Autofac component.

Any MEF catalog type can be registered directly with the container, so to use MEF’s directory scanning ability for example, a System.ComponentModel.Composition.DirectoryCatalog can be used.

var catalog = new DirectoryCatalog("Extensions");

builder.RegisterComposablePartCatalog(catalog);

For documentation on this API see the Autofac MEF integration wiki page.

There’s a deeper discussion of the underlying architecture here.

Other Improvements

Although Autofac 2 introduces some new features, a lot more work went into making the core architecture and API of Autofac more consistent, robust and explicit.

To list a very small selection:

  • Generic type constraints are now respected – Autofac won’t try to use unsuitable generic types when resolving references to generic services.
  • The instance parameters to activation events are strongly-typed, for example builder.RegisterType<Foo>().OnActivating(e => e.Instance.Start()).
  • ASP.NET MVC controller registration is more flexible and simpler via the RegisterControllers() method.
  • Non-shared (‘factory’) scope is the default, rather than Singleton.
  • “Resolve Anything” support
  • API documentation is seachable on Google.

Upgrading from Autofac 1.4

If you’re upgrading from an earlier Autofac release, see the New in V2 wiki page for more detailed information.

There are many breaking changes for users of Autofac 1.4 who want to upgrade. Most of these are just name changes, but some less commonly-used features will cause non-trivial rework. This is the price of keeping Autofac clean, supportable and relevant – if you’re affected by breaking changes you can find consolation in knowing that Autofac is not on the path to becoming a legacy framework :) .

If things do get tough, help is only ever an email away.

Where to Next?

The 2.1 release is largely foundational — its focus is on improving the core container. There are plenty of new features in it, but next in the pipeline is a 2.2 version including, for example, broader ASP.NET MVC support and no doubt some fixes and improvements based on learnings from 2.1.

Acknowledgements and Thanks

Autofac 2 draws on many inspirations and input from a large community. Direct credit for Autofac 2 belongs to the project members, contributors to the mailing list, and supporters in the blogosphere, on stackoverflow and on Twitter.

Many of the ideas in Autofac 2, just as with the version before it, derive from other projects like Windsor, MEF, Funq, Unity, Ninject, StructureMap and their precursors.

Extra thanks is due to the MEF team, whose tireless work is making the .NET a friendlier place for IoC every day.

The Must-Have Tablet for 2010

Quartet Cube

Quartet Cube

If you’re a fan of index cards or Post-it notes for work item tracking, here’s another simple helper you might enjoy.

The Quartet Cube is a tiny, portable metallic whiteboard.

On our recent project we’ve kept three in the project room and found them perfect for:

  • Taking notes during meetings
  • Small focused to-do lists (we often use a pink one to track things we’d like to refactor)
  • Sketching ideas
  • Communicating designs (as demonstrated in the photo by the remarkable Steven Nagy)

The added portability makes it easy to take one to your desk – or to somebody else’s.