dedicated Initialise method is bad - if you use this you must construct an object and then not use it at all until you've successfully called Init, and always destroy it if the Init call fails. Its a mess of initialisation that is much better handled in the constructor.
If you only return a successfully constructed object that contains everything it needs to start working, then you have a much easier time as a programmer using that class.
Similarly, there shouldn't be a problem if the injected dependancy is resolved during construction.
However that means setting the DI object during construction - 'constructor injection', and I assume he's talking about 'property injection' where the config is passed in as a set of property calls after the object is constructed. This is the same problem where you had an Init method, but you now have a SetConfigX method. Names are different, obviously, but the principle is the same - you end up with a half-constructed object that you then fill out with the rest of its state before it can be used.
When doing CQRS+ES I prefer not having public constructors at all. Creating my aggregate roots should be done via a factory (for simple enough constructions such as this) or a builder (for more complicated aggregate roots).
How to then actually initialize the object is an implementation detail. The OOP "Don't use initialize"-advice is imho about public interfaces. You should not expect that anyone that uses your code knows that they must call SecretInitializeMethod42(bool,int,string) - that's bad public API design. However if your class does not provide any public constructor but instead there is a ShoppingCartFactory with the method CreateNewShoppingCart(string) then the implementation of that factory may very well hide any kind of initialization/constructor magic which your user then don't need to know about (thus providing a nice public API, but allowing you to do more advanced object creation behind the scenes).
Factories get a bad rep from people thinking there's too many of them, but used correctly they can hide away a lot of complexity behind a nice easy-to-understand public API. Don't be afraid to use them, they're a powerful tool which can help you make complex object construction much easier - as long as you can live with some more lines of code.
It's not a race to see who can solve the problem with the least lines of code - it is however an ongoing competition as to who can make the nicest public API's! ;)
Edit: Adding some examples on how applying these patterns could look
If you just have an "easy" aggregate constructor that has a couple of required parameters you can go with just a very basic factory implementation, something along these lines
public class FooAggregate {
internal FooAggregate() { }
public int A { get; private set; }
public int B { get; private set; }
internal Handle(FooCreatedEvent evt) {
this.A = a;
this.B = b;
}
}
public class FooFactory {
public FooAggregate Create(int a, int b) {
var evt = new FooCreatedEvent(a, b);
var result = new FooAggregate();
result.Handle(evt);
DomainEvents.Register(result, evt);
return result;
}
}
Of course, exactly how you divide creating the FooCreatedEvent is in this case up to you. One could also make a case for having a FooAggregate(FooCreatedEvent) constructor, or having a FooAggregate(int, int) constructor that creates the event. Exactly how you choose to divide the responsibility here is up to what you think is the cleanest and how you have implemented your domain event registration. I often choose to have the factory create the event - but it's up to you since event creation is now an internal implementation detail that you can change and refactor at any time without changing your external interface. An important detail here is that the aggregate does not have a public constructor and that all the setters are private. You don't want anyone to use them externally.
This pattern works fine when you're just more or less replacing constructors, but if you have more advanced object construction this may become way too complex to use. In this case I usually forego the factory pattern and turn to a builder pattern instead - often with a more fluent syntax.
This example is a bit forced since the class it builds isn't very complex, but you can hopefully grasp the idea and see how it would ease more complex construction tasks
public class FooBuilder {
private int a;
private int b;
public FooBuilder WithA(int a) {
this.a = a;
return this;
}
public FooBuilder WithB(int b) {
this.b = b;
return this;
}
public FooAggregate Build() {
if(!someChecksThatWeHaveAllState()) {
throw new OmgException();
}
// Some hairy logic on how to create a FooAggregate and the creation events from our state
var foo = new FooAggregate(....);
foo.PlentyOfHairyInitialization(...);
DomainEvents.Register(....);
return foo;
}
}
And then you use it like
var foo = new FooBuilder().WithA(1).Build();
And of course, generally when I turn to the builder pattern it's not just two ints, it may contain lists of some value objects or dictionaries of some kind of maybe some other more hairy things. It is however also quite useful if you have many combinations of optional parameters.
The important takeaways for going this way is:
- Your main objective is being able to abstract object construction so that the external user doesn't have to know about your event system.
- It's not that important where or who registers the creation event, the important part is that it gets registered and that you can guarantee that - apart from that, it's an internal implementation detail. Do what fits your code the best, don't follow my example as some sort of "this is the right way"-thing.
- If you want to, by going this way you could have your factories/repositories return interfaces instead of concrete classes - making them easier to mock for unit tests!
- This is a lot of extra code sometimes, which makes many people shy away from it. But it's often quite easy code compared to the alternatives and it does provide value when you do sooner or later need to change stuff. There's a reason that Eric Evans talks about factories/repositories in his DDD-book as important parts of DDD - they are necessary abstractions to not leak certain implementation details to the user. And leaky abstractions are bad.
Hope that helps a bit more, just ask for clarifications in comments otherwise :)
Best Answer
When he says that "The results of running the above are quite varied.", he means that their potential results are varied. The act of running the exact same combination of compiler and runtime will almost certainly produce the same results every time. But other combinations (e.g., the Mono Project's C# compiler and runtime) would be perfectly within their rights to do one of the other things.