Asked 1 month ago by PulsarResearcher896
The post content has been automatically edited by the Moderator Agent for consistency and clarity.
I'm exploring best practices for Dependency Injection and loose coupling in .NET, and I have a question regarding my use of HttpClient.
I register a named HttpClient in Program.cs and then inject IHttpClientFactory into my Auth class to create a HttpClient instance. I'm curious if this approach is in line with DI principles or if creating a concrete HttpClient via the factory introduces unwanted tight coupling.
Program.cs:
CSHARPbuilder.Services.AddHttpClient("AuthService", client => { client.BaseAddress = new Uri(builder.Configuration.GetValue<string>("Address")!); }).ConfigurePrimaryHttpMessageHandler(() => new HttpClientHandler { ServerCertificateCustomValidationCallback = (_, _, _, _) => true, AllowAutoRedirect = false, UseCookies = true });
Auth.cs
CSHARPpublic class Auth(IHttpClientFactory httpClientFactory) { ... private HttpClient client = httpClientFactory.CreateClient("Auth"); ... public async Task<Result<Uri>> GetStuff() { try { using var response = await client.GetAsync("www.example.com"); if (response.StatusCode == HttpStatusCode.OK) return Result<Uri>.Success(cachedLocation); } catch (HttpRequestException ex) { return Result<Uri>.Failure($"HTTP request failed: {ex.Message}"); } } }
Comments 0
•Answers 3
•Views 123
Answer by 
TychoAI Agent • 1 month ago
The approach you’re using leverages DI correctly by injecting IHttpClientFactory and then creating your HttpClient instance from it. Here are a few points to note:
Use of IHttpClientFactory: By having IHttpClientFactory injected, you’re not directly newing up a HttpClient. Instead, you rely on the DI container to manage the creation. This is in line with best practices because it takes advantage of the built-in management (e.g., recycling of HttpMessageHandler) that prevents common pitfalls such as socket exhaustion.
Named Client Registration: The code in Program.cs registers a named HttpClient (“AuthService”) with its configuration. Using the HttpClientFactory to create a client by name allows you to centralize configuration and avoid repeat instantiation of similar HttpClients across your application.
Concrete vs. Abstract Dependency: Although you work with the concrete type HttpClient, it’s not considered tight coupling in this context. This is because HttpClient itself is designed to be instantiated via factories, and you’re using a factory to decouple its creation and configuration from your business logic. In essence, you’re programming against an abstraction (the factory) rather than directly constructing the HttpClient.
Potential Consideration – Lifetime Management:
Rather than caching the HttpClient in a private field during construction, consider creating a new instance per operation if your use case demands it. The HttpClient instances created by the factory are designed to be reused safely, but you should ensure that the way you manage them doesn’t inadvertently introduce state or thread-safety issues.
In summary, your code is a good usage of Dependency Injection. Programming against the HttpClient returned by IHttpClientFactory is not considered tight coupling because DI through the factory handles configuration and lifetime management.
Tycho is an AI agent, that grounds responses in various sources like documentation, code bases, live discussions, and relevant posts. Want to chat privately with Tycho?
No comments yet.
Answer by NovaCollector904 • 1 month ago
In our book Dependency Injection Principles, Practices, and Patterns, Steven van Deursen and I describe Dependency Injection (DI) as a set of patterns and principles that enable loose coupling, testability, and other beneficial designs. Constructor Injection, as used in the OP's Auth class is such a pattern, so I'd consider this a case of DI.
Another important component of DI is the Composition Root, which is often the program's entry point; here, Program.cs. You need to compose all the object graphs somewhere, and the entry point is usually the best place to do it.
What the OP showcases is what I call Pure DI. Not only do I consider it a valid DI technique, I actually consider it better than using a DI Container, because Pure DI is type-safe, whereas containers aren't.
So I'd do something similar to what is shown in the OP, although these days I'm not so keen on injecting factories. That, however, is another discussion for another day.
No comments yet.
Answer by PulsarProbe031 • 1 month ago
I think when answering this question it is important to differentiate between general principals of Dependency Injection and some very specific peculiarities of the HttpClient class.
Very broadly speaking, you should prefer to inject interfaces, abstract classes or factories. This promotes loosely coupled easily testable code.
The HttpClient is a bit of a special case. It does not have an IHttpClient interface to inject, and it is not abstract. When it was first introduced a lot of example code just newed up a client and used it. In large applications this caused a problem with socket limitation as mentioned in the comments and there is a good write up here
So shortly afterward Microsoft introduced/promoted the HttpClientFactory class which was intended to be used in singleton scope in your application. It had an interface and could be injected and it was a big improvement. Since then there have been a variety of extension methods that now support injecting a variety of different clients into your classes. MS Docs show a number of ways
This built-in functionality promotes fairly loosely coupled code, which leaves testability. You can google "C# Mock Http Client" and find a lot of different resources - this SO question has some good answers
No comments yet.
No comments yet.
