我试图在工作中引入依赖注入(DI)模式，我们的一位主要开发人员想知道:如果有的话，使用依赖注入模式的缺点是什么?
注意，如果可能的话，我在这里寻找一个详尽的列表，而不是关于这个主题的主观讨论。
澄清:我谈论的是依赖注入模式(参见Martin Fowler的这篇文章)，而不是特定的框架，无论是基于xml的(如Spring)还是基于代码的(如Guice)，还是“自滚动”的框架。
Reddit的subreddit /r/programming上正在进行一些深入的讨论/咆哮/辩论。
当前回答
仅仅通过实现依赖注入就实现了代码的解耦，而没有实际解耦。我认为这是DI最危险的地方。
其他回答
仅仅通过实现依赖注入就实现了代码的解耦，而没有实际解耦。我认为这是DI最危险的地方。
代码可读性。由于依赖关系隐藏在XML文件中，因此您无法轻松地找出代码流。
If you're using DI without an IoC container, the biggest downside is you quickly see how many dependencies your code actually has and how tightly coupled everything really is. ("But I thought it was a good design!") The natural progression is to move towards an IoC container which can take a little bit of time to learn and implement (not nearly as bad as the WPF learning curve, but it's not free either). The final downside is some developers will begin to write honest to goodness unit tests and it will take them time to figure it out. Devs who could previously crank something out in half a day will suddenly spend two days trying to figure out how to mock all of their dependencies.
类似于马克·西曼(Mark Seemann)的回答(现已删除;只有超过1万个声誉点)，底线是你花时间成为一个更好的开发人员，而不是把代码拼凑在一起，然后把它扔出去/投入生产。你的企业更愿意选择哪一种?只有你能回答这个问题。
在过去的6个月里，我一直在广泛使用Guice (Java DI框架)。虽然总的来说我认为它很棒(特别是从测试的角度来看)，但也有一些缺点。最值得注意的是:
Code can become harder to understand. Dependency injection can be used in very... creative... ways. For example I just came across some code that used a custom annotation to inject a certain IOStreams (eg: @Server1Stream, @Server2Stream). While this does work, and I'll admit has a certain elegance, it makes understanding the Guice injections a prerequisite to understanding the code. Higher learning curve when learning project. This is related to point 1. In order to understand how a project that uses dependency injection works, you need to understand both the dependency injection pattern and the specific framework. When I started at my current job I spent quite a few confused hours groking what Guice was doing behind the scenes. Constructors become large. Although this can be largely resolved with a default constructor or a factory. Errors can be obfuscated. My most recent example of this was I had a collision on 2 flag names. Guice swallowed the error silently and one of my flags wasn't initialized. Errors are pushed to run-time. If you configure your Guice module incorrectly (circular reference, bad binding, ...) most of the errors are not uncovered during compile-time. Instead, the errors are exposed when the program is actually run.
既然我已经抱怨过了。让我说，我将继续在我当前的项目中(很可能是在下一个项目中)使用Guice。依赖注入是一种非常强大的模式。但它肯定会让人困惑，无论你选择什么依赖注入框架，你几乎肯定会花一些时间咒骂。
另外，我同意其他发帖者的观点，依赖注入可能被过度使用。
这是我自己的第一反应:基本上任何模式都有同样的缺点。
学习是需要时间的 如果误解了，就会弊大于利 如果走到极端，工作量可能会超过收益
