This has puzzled me frequently as well. Though not happy about it, I always came to the conclusion that never returning an IDisposable object in a transient way was best.
Recently, I rephrased the question for myself: Is this really an IoC issue, or a .net framework issue? Disposing is awkward anyway. It has no meaningful functional purpose, only technical. So it's more a framework issue that we have to deal with, than an IoC issue.
What I like about DI is that I can ask for a contract providing me functionality, without having to bother about the technical details. I'm not the owner. No knowledge about which layer it's in. No knowledge about which technologies are required to fulfil the contract, no worries about lifetime. My code looks nice and clean, and is highly testable. I can implement responsibilities in the layers where they belong.
So if there's an exception to this rule that does require me to organise the lifetime, let's make that exception. Whether I like it or not. If the object implementing the interface requires me to dispose it, I want to know about it since then I am triggered to use the object as short as possible. A trick by resolving it using a child container which is disposed some time later on might still cause me keeping the object alive longer than I should. The allowed lifetime of the object is determined when registering the object. Not by the functionality that creates a child container and holds on to that for a certain period.
So as long as we developers need to worry about disposing (will that ever change?) I will try to inject as few transient disposable objects as possible.
1. I try to make the object not IDisposable, for example by not keeping disposable objects on class level, but in a smaller scope.
2. I try to make the object reusable so that a different lifetime manager can be applied.
If this is not feasible, I use a factory to indicate that the user of the injected contract is owner and should take responsibility for it.
There is one caveat: changing a contract implementer from non-disposable to disposable will be a breaking change. At that time the interface will no longer be registered, but the interface to the factory. But I think this applies to other scenario's as well. Forgetting to use a child container will from that moment on give memory issues. The factory approach will cause an IoC resolve exception.
Some example code:
using System;
using Microsoft.Practices.Unity;
namespace Test
{
// Unity configuration
public class ConfigurationExtension : UnityContainerExtension
{
protected override void Initialize()
{
// Container.RegisterType<IDataService, DataService>(); Use factory instead
Container.RegisterType<IInjectionFactory<IDataService>, InjectionFactory<IDataService, DataService>>();
}
}
#region General utility layer
public interface IInjectionFactory<out T>
where T : class
{
T Create();
}
public class InjectionFactory<T2, T1> : IInjectionFactory<T2>
where T1 : T2
where T2 : class
{
private readonly IUnityContainer _iocContainer;
public InjectionFactory(IUnityContainer iocContainer)
{
_iocContainer = iocContainer;
}
public T2 Create()
{
return _iocContainer.Resolve<T1>();
}
}
#endregion
#region data layer
public class DataService : IDataService, IDisposable
{
public object LoadData()
{
return "Test data";
}
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing)
{
/* Dispose stuff */
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
}
#endregion
#region domain layer
public interface IDataService
{
object LoadData();
}
public class DomainService
{
private readonly IInjectionFactory<IDataService> _dataServiceFactory;
public DomainService(IInjectionFactory<IDataService> dataServiceFactory)
{
_dataServiceFactory = dataServiceFactory;
}
public object GetData()
{
var dataService = _dataServiceFactory.Create();
try
{
return dataService.LoadData();
}
finally
{
var disposableDataService = dataService as IDisposable;
if (disposableDataService != null)
{
disposableDataService.Dispose();
}
}
}
}
#endregion
}
