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

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。

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。

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.

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