Skip to main content

.NET Core Dependency Injection–Using multiple implementations of the same interface

On most of my projects I'm using Autofac as the Inversion of Control container of my choice. However this introduces an extra dependency and it comes with a (although short) learning curve. So o a newer project, I decided to give the built-in IoC container in .NET Core another try.

The standard DI stuff worked as expected, however there was one situation where I had to investigate a little further. Let me explain...

Registering multiple implementations for the same interface

Here is my use case; in my application I’m using Serilog. One of the features that Serilog has to offer is the concept of an enricher. This allows you to enrich your log messages  with extra information in an easy way. As some of my enrichers required dependencies I wanted to register those enrichers in my  IoC container.

When using Autofac I would have done this like this:

To do the same thing using the Microsoft DI container is not that different:

The AddTransient() method will not override an existing registration allowing us to register multiple implementations for the same interface.

Remark: If you want to have only one implementation registered for a specific interface, you can use the TryAdd… methods available as part of the Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Extensions namespace.

Resolving multiple implementations for the same interface

Ok, that was not that hard. How can we now resolve these implementations?

What is not possible is to resolve a specific implementation as there is no support for keyed or named services. (Have a look here if you want to see how can be done suing Autofac).

Luckily in this case I wanted to get ALL implementations back. That can be done by resolving an IEnumerable<IRegisteredInterface> instance. This will load all registered implementations from the DI container.

Nice!

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...