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。

基于构造函数的依赖注入(没有神奇的“框架”的帮助)是构造OO代码的一种干净而有益的方式。在我所见过的最好的代码库中，经过多年与Martin Fowler的其他前同事的相处，我开始注意到大多数以这种方式编写的优秀类最终都只有一个doSomething方法。

那么，主要的缺点是，一旦您意识到这只是一种笨拙的、冗长的OO方式，将闭包编写为类，以获得函数式编程的好处，那么您编写OO代码的动机就会迅速消失。

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

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。

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。

这更像是吹毛求疵。但是依赖注入的一个缺点是，它使开发工具更难推理和导航代码。

具体来说，如果你在代码中控制-单击/命令-单击方法调用，它将带你到接口上的方法声明，而不是具体的实现。

这实际上是松散耦合代码(由接口设计的代码)的缺点，即使不使用依赖注入(即，即使只是使用工厂)也适用。但是依赖注入的出现真正鼓励了松耦合代码的普及，所以我想我应该提到它。

而且，松散耦合代码的好处远远超过这一点，因此我称之为吹毛求疵。尽管我工作了很长时间，知道如果您试图引入依赖注入，可能会遇到这种情况。

事实上，我敢大胆地猜测，对于依赖注入的每一个“缺点”，您都会发现许多优点远远超过它。