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)。

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。

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.

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。

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。

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。