dsiutils | DSI Utilities are a mishmash of classes | Dependency Injection library

Im using the following go-logr/logr library. I have a test which needs to pass the logger as parameter and check that it was able to log the data that was sent.

I need to test the function GetConfig:

I’m trying to register ServiceBusClient from the new Azure.Messaging.ServiceBus package for dependency injection as recommended in this article using ServiceBusClientBuilderExtensions, but I can’t find any documentation or any help online on how exactly to go about this.

I'm trying to add as below

Added hilt dependencies:

Build.gradle(project)

requirement is like this: user input is single character followed by an array of integers, such as 'A 1 2', 'B 3 4 5', 'C 1', etc. The single character means which class to construct and integers are input parameter to that constructor. Please note different classes might need different number of integers.

Then we need to write a program to parse user input and create objects accordingly.

My approach was to use regular expression for parsing and hard code which class to call.

But another senior developer said a better idea would be using dependency injection to automatically create objects based on user input. He gave another hint to create an interface and use spring framework dependency injection (not spring boot).

I am still confused how to create beans dynamically in this way. Can anybody help please?

As the title says I have a .NET Core application that I am trying to convert over to and take advantage of the built in Microsoft Dependency Injection.

I have an object and a base class for the object, call it CommunicationBase and Communicator. When my app starts up and reads the configuration file, I can have N number of objects to instantiate.

Previously, before switching to Dependency Injection, somewhere in my startup routine, where I read the configuration file, I would have a List variable that I would instantiate and add Communicator objects to and at the same time, set some of the base properties, which changed based on how many were in my configuration and each ones properties in config.

How would I achieve this with DI?

I understand that in my services, I would register the type so it can be injected into other class constructors.

For example, services.AddTransient(); but as I understand it, this just registers the types with DI. I can inject it into a class and have a random instance of one of them.

How would I then have N number of instances and be able to set properties of each one as I create the instance?

Or, is this a scenario where DI is not necessary or won't work and I need to just do it the way I was doing it before?

Thanks!

I have a Spring Framework 5.3.10 application — not Spring Boot. I'm running into a rather trivial problem creating/injecting a Properties bean. Here is my setup:

I'm looking into .NET 6, and wanted to build a simple console application, with some dependency injection.

From what i can read, a lot has been done to make the startup (now just program) file, more readable. What does confuse me a bit is, that all improvements seems to have been made to WebApplication.CreateBuilderpart used in API projects, and not the Host.CreateDefaultBuilder. As mentioned in this blog

Microsofts own docs, also only seems to mention WebApplication.

To me it seems like WebApplication is only for web projects, like an API, and i can't find anything that confirms og debunks that.

Is it okay to use WebApplication in a console application, or should i rely on Host, and keep the stacked lambda expressions ?

I inherited a fairly large codebase that makes heavy use of Autofac. I discover something interesting or even slightly puzzling.

I have a class as such

I am studying design patterns, and at one moment caught myself with an idea, that most creational patterns like Factory and Abstract Factory are not so useful in the scope of a dependency injection environment where we usually don't create objects with the new keyword but "inject" them from some context. I also understand that most probably I am wrong and I need a good explanation to make things clear.