都快三年了，是吧?

在支持IoC框架的评论中，有50%的人不理解IoC和IoC框架之间的区别。我怀疑他们是否知道无需部署到应用服务器就可以编写代码 如果我们以最流行的Java Spring框架为例，IoC配置从XMl转移到代码中，现在看起来是这样的

“@ configuration 公共类AppConfig {

public @Bean TransferService transferService() {
    return new TransferServiceImpl(accountRepository());
}

public @Bean AccountRepository accountRepository() {
    return new InMemoryAccountRepository();
}

｝ ｀ 我们需要一个框架来做这件事，为什么?

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。

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

You would need an IoC container if you needed to centralize the configuration of your dependencies so that they may be easily swapped out en mass. This makes the most sense in TDD, where many dependencies are swapped out, but where there is little interdependence between the dependencies. This is done at the cost of obfuscating the flow of control of object construction to some degree, so having a well organized and reasonably documented configuration is important. It is also good to have a reason to do this, otherwise, it is mere abstraction gold-plating. I have seen it done so poorly that it was dragged down to being the equivalent to a goto statement for constructors.

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。