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.

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)

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。

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。

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

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。