我已经使用依赖注入(DI)有一段时间了,在构造函数、属性或方法中进行注入。我从未觉得有必要使用反转控制(IoC)容器。然而,我读得越多,我就越感到来自社区的使用IoC容器的压力。

我使用过StructureMap、NInject、Unity和Funq等。net容器。我仍然没有看到IoC容器将如何受益/改进我的代码。

我也害怕在工作中开始使用容器,因为我的许多同事会看到他们不理解的代码。他们中的许多人可能不愿意学习新技术。

请说服我,我需要使用IoC容器。当我在工作中与其他开发人员交谈时,我将使用这些论点。


当前回答

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!

其他回答

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.

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。

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!

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)。

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