在我看来，IoC的最大好处是能够集中配置依赖项。

如果你正在使用依赖注入，你的代码可能是这样的

public class CustomerPresenter
{
  public CustomerPresenter() : this(new CustomerView(), new CustomerService())
  {}

  public CustomerPresenter(ICustomerView view, ICustomerService service)
  {
    // init view/service fields
  }
  // readonly view/service fields
}

如果你使用静态IoC类，而不是(恕我直言)更混乱的配置文件，你可以有这样的东西:

public class CustomerPresenter
{
  public CustomerPresenter() : this(IoC.Resolve<ICustomerView>(), IoC.Resolve<ICustomerService>())
  {}

  public CustomerPresenter(ICustomerView view, ICustomerService service)
  {
    // init view/service fields
  }
  // readonly view/service fields
}

然后，你的静态IoC类看起来像这样，我在这里使用Unity。

public static IoC
{
   private static readonly IUnityContainer _container;
   static IoC()
   {
     InitializeIoC();
   }

   static void InitializeIoC()
   {
      _container = new UnityContainer();
      _container.RegisterType<ICustomerView, CustomerView>();
      _container.RegisterType<ICustomerService, CustomerService>();
      // all other RegisterTypes and RegisterInstances can go here in one file.
      // one place to change dependencies is good.
   }
}

因为所有的依赖关系都是清晰可见的，所以它可以促进创建松散耦合的组件，同时在整个应用程序中易于访问和重用。

使用容器主要是将命令式/脚本化的初始化和配置风格改为声明式的。这可能会有一些不同的有益影响:

减少主程序启动的繁琐程序。 支持相当深入的部署时重新配置功能。 使依赖注入样式成为新工作阻力最小的路径。

当然，可能会有困难:

需要复杂启动/关闭/生命周期管理的代码可能不容易适应容器。 你可能需要处理个人、流程和团队文化方面的问题——但这就是你为什么要问…… 一些工具包本身正在迅速成为重量级的工具，鼓励了许多依赖注入容器开始反对的那种深度依赖。

我支持你，瓦迪姆。IoC容器采用了一个简单、优雅且有用的概念，并使其成为您需要用200页手册学习两天的东西。

我个人很困惑，为什么IoC社区把Martin Fowler写的一篇漂亮、优雅的文章变成了一堆复杂的框架，通常只有200-300页的手册。

我尽量不去评判(哈哈!)，但我认为使用IoC容器的人(A)非常聪明，(B)对不如他们聪明的人缺乏同理心。对他们来说，每件事都很有意义，所以他们很难理解许多普通程序员会感到困惑的概念。这是知识的诅咒。理解IoC容器的人很难相信还有人不理解它。

The most valuable benefit of using an IoC container is that you can have a configuration switch in one place which lets you change between, say, test mode and production mode. For example, suppose you have two versions of your database access classes... one version which logged aggressively and did a lot of validation, which you used during development, and another version without logging or validation that was screamingly fast for production. It is nice to be able to switch between them in one place. On the other hand, this is a fairly trivial problem easily handled in a simpler way without the complexity of IoC containers.

我相信如果您使用IoC容器，您的代码将变得(坦白地说)难以阅读。为了弄清楚代码要做什么，您必须查看的地方的数量至少增加了一个。在天堂的某个地方，一位天使在呼喊。

我是声明式编程的爱好者(看看我回答了多少SQL问题)，但我所研究的IoC容器似乎太神秘了。

.．.或者IoC容器的开发人员无法编写清晰的文档。

.．.或者两者在某种程度上都是正确的。

我不认为IoC容器的概念不好。但是实现必须足够强大(即灵活)，以便在各种各样的应用程序中都有用，同时又要简单易懂。

可能是其他的六个中的六个。真正的应用程序(不是玩具或演示)必然是复杂的，会有许多极端情况和规则的例外。您可以将这种复杂性封装在命令式代码中，也可以封装在声明式代码中。但你必须在某个地方表示它。

IoC容器也适用于装入嵌套很深的类依赖项。例如，如果你有以下代码使用依赖注入。

public void GetPresenter()
{
    var presenter = new CustomerPresenter(new CustomerService(new CustomerRepository(new DB())));
}

class CustomerPresenter
{
    private readonly ICustomerService service;
    public CustomerPresenter(ICustomerService service)
    {
        this.service = service;
    }
}

class CustomerService
{
    private readonly IRespository<Customer> repository;
    public CustomerService(IRespository<Customer> repository)
    {
        this.repository = repository;
    }
}

class CustomerRepository : IRespository<Customer>
{
    private readonly DB db;
    public CustomerRepository(DB db)
    {
        this.db = db;
    }
}

class DB { }

如果你把所有这些依赖都加载到一个IoC容器中，你可以解析CustomerService，所有的子依赖都会自动得到解析。

例如:

public static IoC
{
   private IUnityContainer _container;
   static IoC()
   {
       InitializeIoC();
   }

   static void InitializeIoC()
   {
      _container = new UnityContainer();
      _container.RegisterType<ICustomerService, CustomerService>();
      _container.RegisterType<IRepository<Customer>, CustomerRepository>();
   }

   static T Resolve<T>()
   {
      return _container.Resolve<T>();
   }
}

public void GetPresenter()
{
   var presenter = IoC.Resolve<CustomerPresenter>();
   // presenter is loaded and all of its nested child dependencies 
   // are automatically injected
   // -
   // Also, note that only the Interfaces need to be registered
   // the concrete types like DB and CustomerPresenter will automatically 
   // resolve.
}

我认为IoC的大部分价值都是通过使用DI获得的。既然你已经这样做了，剩下的好处是递增的。

你得到的值将取决于你正在处理的应用程序的类型:

For multi-tenant, the IoC container can take care of some of the infrastructure code for loading different client resources. When you need a component that is client specific, use a custom selector to do handle the logic and don't worry about it from your client code. You can certainly build this yourself but here's an example of how an IoC can help. With many points of extensibility, the IoC can be used to load components from configuration. This is a common thing to build but tools are provided by the container. If you want to use AOP for some cross-cutting concerns, the IoC provides hooks to intercept method invocations. This is less commonly done ad-hoc on projects but the IoC makes it easier.

我以前写过这样的功能，但如果我现在需要这些功能中的任何一个，我宁愿使用一个预先构建并经过测试的工具，如果它适合我的架构的话。

正如其他人所提到的，您还可以集中配置希望使用的类。虽然这可能是一件好事，但代价是误导和复杂化。大多数应用程序的核心组件都没有被替换，因此很难做出取舍。

我使用IoC容器，并欣赏其功能，但不得不承认我注意到了权衡:我的代码在类级别变得更加清晰，而在应用程序级别变得不那么清晰(即可视化控制流)。

在。net世界里AOP还不是很流行，所以对于依赖注入来说，一个框架是你唯一真正的选择，不管你是自己写一个框架还是使用另一个框架。

如果您使用AOP，则可以在编译应用程序时进行注入，这在Java中更为常见。

DI有很多好处，比如减少耦合，从而使单元测试更容易，但是您将如何实现它呢?你想用反射来自己做吗?

在我看来，您已经构建了自己的IoC容器(使用Martin Fowler描述的各种模式)，并且正在询问为什么其他人的实现比您的更好。

所以，你有一堆已经工作的代码。并且想知道为什么要用其他人的实现来替换它。

考虑第三方IoC容器的优点

你可以免费修理bug 图书馆的设计可能比你的好 人们可能已经熟悉了特定的库 图书馆可能比你的快 它可能有一些您希望实现但没有时间实现的特性(您有服务定位器吗?)

Cons

你可以免费引入bug:) 图书馆的设计可能比你的还差 你必须学习一个新的API 太多你永远不会用到的功能 调试不是你写的代码通常比较困难 从以前的IoC容器迁移可能很乏味

所以，权衡利弊，做出决定吧。

想必没有人强迫您使用依赖注入容器框架。您已经使用DI来解耦类并改进可测试性，因此您将获得许多好处。简而言之，你喜欢简单，这通常是件好事。

如果您的系统达到了一个复杂的水平，手动DI变成了一件苦差事(也就是说，增加了维护)，请将其与DI容器框架的团队学习曲线进行权衡。

如果您需要对依赖生命周期管理进行更多的控制(也就是说，如果您觉得需要实现单例模式)，请查看DI容器。

如果使用DI容器，请只使用需要的特性。跳过XML配置文件，在代码中配置即可。坚持构造函数注入。Unity或StructureMap的基本内容可以压缩到几个页面中。

Mark Seemann写了一篇很棒的博文:什么时候使用DI容器

As you continue to decouple your classes and invert your dependencies, the classes continue to stay small and the "dependency graph" continues to grow in size. (This isn't bad.) Using basic features of an IoC container makes wiring up all these objects trivial, but doing it manually can get very burdensome. For example, what if I want to create a new instance of "Foo" but it needs a "Bar". And a "Bar" needs an "A", "B", and "C". And each of those need 3 other things, etc etc. (yes, I can't come up with good fake names :) ).

使用IoC容器为您构建对象图可以大大降低复杂性，并将其推到一次性配置中。我只需说“给我创建一个Foo”，它就会计算出构建一个Foo需要什么。

有些人将IoC容器用于更多的基础设施，这对于高级场景来说是很好的，但在这些情况下，我同意它会使新开发人员难以阅读和调试代码。

哇，真不敢相信乔尔会喜欢这个

var svc = new ShippingService(new ProductLocator(), 
   new PricingService(), new InventoryService(), 
   new TrackingRepository(new ConfigProvider()), 
   new Logger(new EmailLogger(new ConfigProvider())));

在这:

var svc = IoC.Resolve<IShippingService>();

许多人没有意识到你的依赖链可能会变成嵌套的，手动连接它们很快就会变得笨拙。即使使用工厂，重复代码也是不值得的。

IoC容器可以很复杂，是的。但是对于这个简单的例子，我已经证明了它非常简单。

好吧，让我们进一步证明这一点。假设您有一些想要绑定到智能UI的实体或模型对象。这个智能UI(我们称它为Shindows Morms)希望你实现INotifyPropertyChanged，这样它就可以进行更改跟踪并相应地更新UI。

"好吧，听起来没那么难"于是你开始写。

你可以这样开始:

public class Customer
{
    public string FirstName { get; set; }
    public string LastName { get; set; }
    public DateTime CustomerSince { get; set; }
    public string Status { get; set; }
}

．．结果是这样的:

public class UglyCustomer : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
    private string _firstName;
    public string FirstName
    {
        get { return _firstName; }
        set
        {
            string oldValue = _firstName;
            _firstName = value;
            if(oldValue != value)
                OnPropertyChanged("FirstName");
        }
    }

    private string _lastName;
    public string LastName
    {
        get { return _lastName; }
        set
        {
            string oldValue = _lastName;
            _lastName = value;
            if(oldValue != value)
                OnPropertyChanged("LastName");
        }
    }

    private DateTime _customerSince;
    public DateTime CustomerSince
    {
        get { return _customerSince; }
        set
        {
            DateTime oldValue = _customerSince;
            _customerSince = value;
            if(oldValue != value)
                OnPropertyChanged("CustomerSince");
        }
    }

    private string _status;
    public string Status
    {
        get { return _status; }
        set
        {
            string oldValue = _status;
            _status = value;
            if(oldValue != value)
                OnPropertyChanged("Status");
        }
    }

    protected virtual void OnPropertyChanged(string property)
    {
        var propertyChanged = PropertyChanged;

        if(propertyChanged != null)
            propertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(property));
    }

    public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
}

这是令人作呕的管道代码，我认为如果你手写这样的代码，你就是在从客户那里偷东西。有更好更聪明的工作方式。

听过“更聪明地工作，而不是更努力地工作”这句话吗?

想象一下，你团队里有个聪明人说:“这有个更简单的方法”

如果你让你的财产是虚拟的(冷静点，这没什么大不了的)，那么我们就可以自动地编织财产行为。(这被称为AOP，但是不要担心它的名字，专注于它将为你做什么)

根据你使用的IoC工具，你可以这样做:

var bindingFriendlyInstance = IoC.Resolve<Customer>(new NotifyPropertyChangedWrapper());

噗!所有手动INotifyPropertyChanged BS现在都自动为您生成，在对象的每个虚拟属性setter上。

这是魔法吗?是的!如果您相信这段代码完成了它的工作，那么您就可以安全地跳过所有属性包装的繁文缛节。你有业务问题要解决。

IoC工具用于AOP的其他一些有趣的用法:

声明式和嵌套的数据库事务 声明性和嵌套的工作单元 日志记录 前/后条件(按合同设计)

依赖注入在ASP。NET项目可以用几行代码完成。我认为，当你的应用程序使用多个前端并需要单元测试时，使用容器会有一些好处。

就我个人而言，我使用IoC作为我的应用程序的某种结构图(是的，我也喜欢StructureMap;))。这使得在测试期间用Moq实现代替我通常的接口实现变得很容易。创建一个测试设置可以像对我的ioc -框架进行一个新的初始化调用一样简单，用一个mock代替任何一个测试边界类。

这可能不是IoC存在的目的，但这是我发现自己使用它最多的地方。

我只是碰巧正在把自己生长的DI代码拉出来，并用IOC替换它。我可能已经删除了200多行代码，用大约10行代码替换了它。是的，我必须学习如何使用容器(Winsor)，但我是一名在21世纪从事互联网技术工作的工程师，所以我已经习惯了。我大概花了20分钟看了一下怎么做。这很值得我花时间。

无论何时使用“new”关键字，您都是在创建一个具体的类依赖，您的头脑中应该敲响警钟。孤立地测试这个物体变得更加困难。解决方案是对接口进行编程并注入依赖项，这样对象就可以用实现该接口的任何东西进行单元测试。模拟)。

The trouble is you have to construct objects somewhere. A Factory pattern is one way to shift the coupling out of your POXOs (Plain Old "insert your OO language here" Objects). If you and your co-workers are all writing code like this then an IoC container is the next "Incremental Improvement" you can make to your codebase. It'll shift all that nasty Factory boilerplate code out of your clean objects and business logic. They'll get it and love it. Heck, give a company talk on why you love it and get everyone enthused.

如果你的同事还没有做DI，那么我建议你先专注于DI。宣传如何编写易于测试的干净代码。干净的DI代码是比较困难的部分，一旦做到了这一点，将对象连接逻辑从Factory类转移到IoC容器应该是相对简单的。

关于Unity也是如此。如果房子太大，你会听到房梁的吱吱声。

当人们开始大谈IoC代码看起来有多干净时，我从不感到惊讶，这些人在90年代曾说过c++中的模板是如何优雅的方式，但现在却会谴责它们是神秘的。呸!

对我来说，使用IoC容器的最大好处(我个人使用Ninject)是消除了设置和其他类型的全局状态对象的传递。

我不为web编程，我的是一个控制台应用程序，在对象树的许多地方，我需要访问用户指定的设置或元数据，这些设置或元数据是在对象树的一个完全独立的分支上创建的。通过IoC，我简单地告诉Ninject将设置作为一个单例(因为它们总是只有一个实例)，在构造函数中请求设置或字典，然后立即…它们在我需要的时候神奇地出现了!

如果不使用IoC容器，我将不得不通过2,3，…传递设置和/或元数据。在它被需要它的对象实际使用之前，有n个对象。

DI/IoC容器还有许多其他好处，正如其他人在这里详细介绍的那样，从创建对象到请求对象的想法可能会令人难以置信，但使用DI对我和我的团队非常有帮助，所以也许您可以将其添加到您的库中!

IoC框架非常棒，如果你想…

…扔掉类型安全。许多(?)IoC框架迫使您执行代码，如果您想确保所有东西都正确连接。“嘿!希望我已经把一切都设置好了，这样我对这100个类的初始化就不会在生产中失败，抛出空指针异常!” .．.在代码中使用全局变量(IoC框架都是关于改变全局状态的)。 .．.编写依赖关系不明确、难以重构的蹩脚代码，因为你永远不知道什么依赖什么。

IoC的问题在于，使用它的人过去常常编写这样的代码

public class Foo {
    public Bar Apa {get;set;}
    Foo() {
        Apa = new Bar();
    }
}

这显然是有缺陷的，因为Foo和Bar之间的依赖是硬连接的。然后他们意识到编写这样的代码会更好

public class Foo {
    public IBar Apa {get;set;}
    Foo() {
        Apa = IoC<IBar>();
    }
}

这也有缺陷，但不那么明显。 在Haskell中，Foo()的类型将是IO Foo，但你真的不想要IO部分，这应该是一个警告信号，如果你得到了它，你的设计有问题。

为了摆脱它(io部分)，获得ioc框架的所有优点，去掉它的所有缺点，你可以使用抽象工厂。

正确的解决方法应该是

data Foo = Foo { apa :: Bar }

或者

data Foo = forall b. (IBar b) => Foo { apa :: b }

和inject(但我不会叫它inject) Bar。

另外:观看Erik Meijer (LINQ的发明者)的视频，他说DI是为不懂数学的人准备的(我非常同意):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mttjyf-8P4

不像Spolsky先生，我不相信使用ioc框架的人很聪明——我只是认为他们不懂数学。

不需要IoC容器。

但是如果您严格遵循依赖注入模式，您会发现使用一个依赖注入模式将会删除大量冗余的、无聊的代码。

无论如何，这通常是使用一个库/框架的最佳时机——当你了解它在做什么并且不需要库也能完成它的时候。

I've found that correctly implementing Dependency Injection tends to force programmers to use a variety of other programming practices that help to improve the testability, flexibility, maintainability, and scalability of code: practices like the Single Responsibility Principle, Separations of Concerns, and coding against APIs. It feels like I'm being compelled to write more modular, bite-sized classes and methods, which makes the code easier to read, because it can be taken in bite-sized chunks.

但它也倾向于创建相当大的依赖树，通过框架(特别是如果您使用约定)比手工管理要容易得多。今天我想在LINQPad中快速测试一些东西，我认为创建内核并在我的模块中加载太麻烦了，最后我手写了这个:

var merger = new SimpleWorkflowInstanceMerger(
    new BitFactoryLog(typeof(SimpleWorkflowInstanceMerger).FullName), 
    new WorkflowAnswerRowUtil(
        new WorkflowFieldAnswerEntMapper(),
        new ActivityFormFieldDisplayInfoEntMapper(),
        new FieldEntMapper()),
    new AnswerRowMergeInfoRepository());

回想起来，使用IoC框架会更快，因为模块按照约定定义了几乎所有这些东西。

Having spent some time studying the answers and comments on this question, I am convinced that the people who are opposed to using an IoC container aren't practicing true dependency injection. The examples I've seen are of practices that are commonly confused with dependency injection. Some people are complaining about difficulty "reading" the code. If done correctly, the vast majority of your code should be identical when using DI by hand as when using an IoC container. The difference should reside entirely in a few "launching points" within the application.

换句话说，如果你不喜欢IoC容器，你可能没有按照它应该做的方式来做依赖注入。

另一点:如果你在任何地方都使用反射，依赖注入真的不能手工完成。虽然我讨厌反射对代码导航造成的影响，但您必须认识到，在某些领域，它确实是无法避免的。ASP。例如，NET MVC尝试通过对每个请求的反射来实例化控制器。要手动进行依赖注入，你必须让每个控制器都成为“上下文根”，如下所示:

public class MyController : Controller
{
    private readonly ISimpleWorkflowInstanceMerger _simpleMerger;
    public MyController()
    {
        _simpleMerger = new SimpleWorkflowInstanceMerger(
            new BitFactoryLog(typeof(SimpleWorkflowInstanceMerger).FullName), 
            new WorkflowAnswerRowUtil(
                new WorkflowFieldAnswerEntMapper(),
                new ActivityFormFieldDisplayInfoEntMapper(),
                new FieldEntMapper()),
            new AnswerRowMergeInfoRepository())
    }
    ...
}

现在将其与允许DI框架为你做这件事进行比较:

public MyController : Controller
{
    private readonly ISimpleWorkflowInstanceMerger _simpleMerger;
    public MyController(ISimpleWorkflowInstanceMerger simpleMerger)
    {
        _simpleMerger = simpleMerger;
    }
    ...
}

使用DI框架，注意:

I can unit-test this class. By creating a mock ISimpleWorkflowInstanceMerger, I can test that it gets used the way I anticipate, without the need for a database connection or anything. I use far less code, and the code is much easier to read. If one of my dependency's dependency's changes, I don't have to make any changes to the controller. This is especially nice when you consider that multiple controllers are likely to use some of the same dependencies. I never explicitly reference classes from my data layer. My web application can just include a reference to the project containing the ISimpleWorkflowInstanceMerger interface. This allows me to break the application up into separate modules, and maintain a true multi-tier architecture, which in turn makes things much more flexible.

A typical web application will have quite a few controllers. All of the pain of doing DI by hand in each controller will really add up as your application grows. If you have an application with only one context root, which never tries to instantiate a service by reflection, then this isn't as big a problem. Nevertheless, any application that uses Dependency Injection will become extremely expensive to manage once it reaches a certain size, unless you use a framework of some kind to manage the dependency graph.

I'm a recovering IOC addict. I'm finding it hard to justify using IOC for DI in most cases these days. IOC containers sacrifice compile time checking and supposedly in return give you "easy" setup, complex lifetime management and on the fly discovering of dependencies at run time. I find the loss of compile time checking and resulting run time magic/exceptions, is not worth the bells and whistles in the vast majority of cases. In large enterprise applications they can make it very difficult to follow what is going on.

我不相信集中化的说法，因为你可以通过为你的应用程序使用一个抽象工厂，并虔诚地将对象创建推迟到抽象工厂，即进行适当的DI，来非常容易地集中静态设置。

为什么不像这样做静态无魔法DI:

interface IServiceA { }
interface IServiceB { }
class ServiceA : IServiceA { }
class ServiceB : IServiceB { }

class StubServiceA : IServiceA { }
class StubServiceB : IServiceB { }

interface IRoot { IMiddle Middle { get; set; } }
interface IMiddle { ILeaf Leaf { get; set; } }
interface ILeaf { }

class Root : IRoot
{
    public IMiddle Middle { get; set; }

    public Root(IMiddle middle)
    {
        Middle = middle;
    }

}

class Middle : IMiddle
{
    public ILeaf Leaf { get; set; }

    public Middle(ILeaf leaf)
    {
        Leaf = leaf;
    }
}

class Leaf : ILeaf
{
    IServiceA ServiceA { get; set; }
    IServiceB ServiceB { get; set; }

    public Leaf(IServiceA serviceA, IServiceB serviceB)
    {
        ServiceA = serviceA;
        ServiceB = serviceB;
    }
}


interface IApplicationFactory
{
    IRoot CreateRoot();
}

abstract class ApplicationAbstractFactory : IApplicationFactory
{
    protected abstract IServiceA ServiceA { get; }
    protected abstract IServiceB ServiceB { get; }

    protected IMiddle CreateMiddle()
    {
        return new Middle(CreateLeaf());
    }

    protected ILeaf CreateLeaf()
    {
        return new Leaf(ServiceA,ServiceB);
    }


    public IRoot CreateRoot()
    {
        return new Root(CreateMiddle());
    }
}

class ProductionApplication : ApplicationAbstractFactory
{
    protected override IServiceA ServiceA
    {
        get { return new ServiceA(); }
    }

    protected override IServiceB ServiceB
    {
        get { return new ServiceB(); }
    }
}

class FunctionalTestsApplication : ApplicationAbstractFactory
{
    protected override IServiceA ServiceA
    {
        get { return new StubServiceA(); }
    }

    protected override IServiceB ServiceB
    {
        get { return new StubServiceB(); }
    }
}


namespace ConsoleApplication5
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            var factory = new ProductionApplication();
            var root = factory.CreateRoot();

        }
    }

    //[TestFixture]
    class FunctionalTests
    {
        //[Test]
        public void Test()
        {
            var factory = new FunctionalTestsApplication();
            var root = factory.CreateRoot();
        }
    }
}

容器配置是抽象工厂实现，注册是抽象成员的实现。 如果您需要一个新的单例依赖项，只需向抽象工厂添加另一个抽象属性即可。如果你需要一个瞬态依赖，只需添加另一个方法并将其作为Func<>注入即可。

优点:

所有的设置和对象创建配置都是集中的。 配置只是代码 编译时检查使其易于维护，因为您不会忘记更新注册。 没有运行时反射魔法

我建议持怀疑态度的人尝试下一个新项目，诚实地问问自己什么时候需要这种容器。稍后很容易引入IOC容器，因为您只是用IOC容器配置模块替换了一个工厂实现。

老实说，我没有发现有很多情况需要IoC容器，大多数情况下，它们只是增加了不必要的复杂性。

如果你只是用它来简化对象的构造，我要问，你是否在多个位置实例化了这个对象?单例不适合您的需要吗?您是否在运行时更改配置?(切换数据源类型等)。

如果是，那么您可能需要一个IoC容器。如果不是，那么您只是将初始化移到开发人员容易看到的地方。

谁说接口比继承好?假设您正在测试一个服务。为什么不使用构造函数DI，并使用继承创建依赖关系的模拟呢?我使用的大多数服务只有少数依赖项。以这种方式进行单元测试可以避免维护大量无用的接口，也意味着您不必使用Resharper来快速查找方法的声明。

我相信对于大多数实现来说，说IoC容器删除不需要的代码是一个神话。

首先，首先要设置容器。然后，您仍然必须定义需要初始化的每个对象。所以在初始化时不保存代码，而是移动它(除非你的对象被使用了不止一次)。单例是否更好?)然后，对于以这种方式初始化的每个对象，都必须创建和维护一个接口。

有人有什么想法吗?

都快三年了，是吧?

在支持IoC框架的评论中，有50%的人不理解IoC和IoC框架之间的区别。我怀疑他们是否知道无需部署到应用服务器就可以编写代码 如果我们以最流行的Java Spring框架为例，IoC配置从XMl转移到代码中，现在看起来是这样的

“@ configuration 公共类AppConfig {

public @Bean TransferService transferService() {
    return new TransferServiceImpl(accountRepository());
}

public @Bean AccountRepository accountRepository() {
    return new InMemoryAccountRepository();
}

｝ ｀ 我们需要一个框架来做这件事，为什么?

You would need an IoC container if you needed to centralize the configuration of your dependencies so that they may be easily swapped out en mass. This makes the most sense in TDD, where many dependencies are swapped out, but where there is little interdependence between the dependencies. This is done at the cost of obfuscating the flow of control of object construction to some degree, so having a well organized and reasonably documented configuration is important. It is also good to have a reason to do this, otherwise, it is mere abstraction gold-plating. I have seen it done so poorly that it was dragged down to being the equivalent to a goto statement for constructors.

原因如下。这个项目被称为IOC-with-Ninject。您可以下载并使用Visual Studio运行它。这个例子使用了Ninject，但是所有的“new”语句都在一个位置，你可以通过改变使用哪个绑定模块来完全改变应用程序的运行方式。示例的设置使您可以绑定到服务的模拟版本或真实版本。在小型项目中，这可能无关紧要，但在大型项目中，这是一件大事。

先说清楚，我认为他们的优势是: 1)所有新语句位于代码根的一个位置。 2)只做一个改动就完全重构了代码。 3)“酷因素”加分，因为它……:酷。: p

Ioc容器解决了一个你可能没有的问题，但这是一个很好的问题

http://kozmic.net/2012/10/23/ioc-container-solves-a-problem-you-might-not-have-but-its-a-nice-problem-to-have/

你不需要一个框架来实现依赖注入。您也可以通过java核心概念来实现这一点。 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection#Code_illustration_using_Java

我将尝试从我的角度找出为什么IOC可能不好。

As with everything else, IOC container (or as Einstein would put it I=OC^2) is a concept you have to decide for yourself if you need it or not in your code. Recent fashion outcry about IOC is only that, fashion. Don't fall for fashion, that is first. There are myriads of concepts out there you could implement in your code. First of all, I am using dependency injection since I have started programming, and learned the term itself when it was popularized under that name. Dependency control is a very old subject and it was addressed so far in trillions of ways, depending on what was decoupling from what. Decoupling everything from everything is a nonsense. The problem with IOC container is that it tries to be as useful as Entity Framework or NHibernate. While writing an object-relational mapper is simply a must as soon as you have to couple any database with your system, IOC container is not always necessary. So when IOC container is useful:

当你有很多依赖的情况，你想组织 当你不关心你的代码与第三方产品的耦合时 当您的开发人员想要学习如何使用新工具时

1:在你的代码中有这么多依赖关系并不常见，或者你在设计的早期就意识到了它们。当需要抽象思维时，抽象思维是有用的。

2:将你的代码与第三方代码耦合是一个巨大的问题。我使用的是10多年前的代码，当时遵循的是ATL、COM、COM+等花哨而先进的概念。现在你对这些代码无能为力了。我想说的是，一个先进的概念会带来明显的优势，但从长远来看，这种优势本身就过时了。这只会让一切都变得更贵。

3: Software development is hard enough. You can extend it to unrecognizable levels if you allow some advanced concept to crop into your code. There is a problem with IOC2. Although it is decoupling dependencies, it is decoupling the logic flow as well. Imagine you have found a bug and you need to set a break to examine the situation. IOC2, as any other advanced concept, is making that more difficult. Fixing a bug within a concept is more difficult than fixing a bug in a plainer code, because when you fix a bug a concept must be obeyed again. (Just to give you an example, C++ .NET is constantly changing the syntax so much that you need to think hard before you refactor some older version of .NET.) So what is the problem with IOC? The problem is in resolving dependencies. The logic for resolving is commonly hidden in the IOC2 itself, written maybe in uncommon way that you need to learn and maintain. Will your third-party product be there in 5 years? Microsoft's was not.

"We know how" syndrome is written all over the place regarding IOC2. This is similar to automation testing. Fancy term and perfect solution at first glance, you simply put all your tests to execute over night and see the results in the morning. It is really painful to explain company after company what automated testing really means. Automated testing is definitely not a quick way of reducing the number of bugs which you can introduce overnight to increase the quality of your product. But, fashion is making that notion annoyingly dominant. IOC2 suffers the same syndrome. It is believed that you need to implement it in order your software to be good. EvErY recent interview I was asked if I am implementing IOC2 and automation. That is a sign of fashion: the company had some part of code written in MFC they will not abandon.

你需要像学习软件中的其他概念一样学习IOC2。是否需要使用IOC2是由团队和公司内部决定的。但是，在做出决定之前，至少必须提到以上所有的理由。只有当你看到积极的一面超过消极的一面，你才能做出积极的决定。

There is nothing wrong with IOC2 except that it does solve only the problems it solves and introduces the problems it introduces. Nothing else. However, going against the fashion is very difficult, they have sweat mouth, the followers of anything. It is strange how none of them is there when the problem with their fanciness becomes apparent. Many concepts in software industry have been defended because they create profit, books are written, conferences held, new products made. That is fashion, usually short lived. As soon as people find something else they abandon it completely. IOC2 is useful but it shows the same signs as many other vanished concepts I have seen. I do not know if it will survive. There is no rule for that. You think if it is useful, it will survive. No, it does not go that way. One big rich company is enough and the concept can die within few weeks. We'll see. NHibernate survived, EF came second. Maybe IOC2 will survive too. Do not forget that most concepts in software development are about nothing special, they are very logical, simple and obvious, and sometimes it is more difficult to remember the current naming convention than to understand the concept itself. Does the knowledge of IOC2 make a developer a better developer? No, because if a developer was not able to come up with a concept similar in nature to IOC2 then it will be difficult for him or her to understand which problem IOC2 is solving, using it will look artificial and he or she may start using it for sake of being some sort of politically correct.

我知道这是一个相当老的帖子，但它似乎仍然相当活跃，我想我可以贡献一些在其他回答中没有提到的观点。

我同意依赖注入的好处，但我更喜欢自己构造和管理对象，使用与Maxm007在回答中概述的模式相似的模式。我发现了使用第三方容器的两个主要问题:

1) Having a 3rd party library manage the lifetime of your objects "automagically" can lend itself to unexpected results. We have found that especially in large projects, you can have vastly more copies of an object than you expect, and more than you would if you were manually managing the lifecycles. I'm sure this varies depending on the framework used, but the problem exists nonetheless. This can also be problematic if your object holds resources, data connections, etc., since the object can sometimes live longer than you expect. So inevitably, IoC containers tend to increase the resource utilization and memory footprint of an application.

2) IoC containers, in my opinion, are a form of "black box programming". I have found that in particular, our less experienced developers tend to abuse them. It allows the programmer to not have to think about how objects should relate to each other or how to decouple them, because it provides them with a mechanism in which they can simply grab any object they want out of thin air. Eg, there may be a good design reason that ObjectA should never know about ObjectB directly, but rather than creating a factory or bridge or service locator, an inexperienced programmer will simply say "no problem, I'll just grab ObjectB from the IoC container". This can actually lead to increased object coupling, which is what IoC is supposed to help prevent.