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。

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。

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!