inversion-of-control

I have made an C# WPF Application using the MVVM Light framework . My Application uses the ViewModelLocator class to locate the viewmodels during runtime. The ViewModelLocator makes usage of the SimpleIoc class which also comes with the MVVM Light framework . Here is my scenario: The user logs in an can use my application. On logout, i want to dispose/reset/recreate all viewmodel instances to provide a clean environment to the next user. I tried to implement the Cleanup() method in the ViewModelLocator class but it is not working. Not working means that the (second) user sees the data from the

Am trying Unity IoC, after using constructor based DI. Problem is trying to get integration tests working. http://patrick.lioi.net/2013/06/20/streamlined-integration-tests/ "Running your integration tests should exercise as much of the real system as is reasonably possible" Patrick above describes setting up an IoC inside the MVC Unit test project.. but I'm stuck as to how to implement public class HomeController : Controller { readonly IWinterDb db; // Unity knows that if IWinterDb interface is asked for, it will inject in a new WinterDb() public HomeController(IWinterDb db) { this.db = db; }

I get error The resource cannot be found. When I try to implement Ninject in my MVC-3 application. The problem appears to be coming from Global.asax during CreateKernel() #region Inversion of Control protected override IKernel CreateKernel() { return Container; } static IKernel _container; public static IKernel Container { get { if (_container == null) { _container = new StandardKernel(new SiteModule()); } return _container; } } internal class SiteModule : NinjectModule { public override void Load() { bool MOCKDB = true; //MOCKDB = false;//Stop Mocking if (MOCKDB) { //Set up mock bindings Bind

I'm struggling with getting IOC to work in a remoting scenario. I have my application server set up to publish Services (SingleCall) which are configured via XML. This works just like this as we all know: RemotingConfiguration.Configure(ConfigFile, true); lets say my service looks like that (pseudocode) public class TourService : ITourService { IRepository _repository; public TourService() { _repository = new SqlServerRepository(); } } But what I rather would like to have sure looks like this: public class TourService : ITourService { IRepository _repository; public TourService(IRepository

Since I don't have in depth knowledge of spring session scope implementation. Can anyone please tell me if it is wise to use Spring Session scoped beans, where HttpSession object is very crucial. Like a web application where thousands of users access the site simultaneously. Is spring session scoped bean saved in HttpSession object? Or even if HttpSession object only refers to the spring session scoped bean, are we not making session object heavy? How is it different form storing any bean directly in HttpSession object (making HttpSession object heavy point of view)? The object is not really

After reading the nice answers in this question , I watched the screencasts by Justin Etheredge. It all seems very nice, with a minimum of setup you get DI right from your code. Now the question that creeps up to me is: why would you want to use a DI framework that doesn't use configuration files? Isn't that the whole point of using a DI infrastructure so that you can alter the behaviour (the "strategy", so to speak) after building/releasing/whatever the code? Can anyone give me a good use case that validates using a non-configured DI like Ninject? I don't think you want a DI-framework without