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

无论何时使用“new”关键字,您都是在创建一个具体的类依赖,您的头脑中应该敲响警钟。孤立地测试这个物体变得更加困难。解决方案是对接口进行编程并注入依赖项,这样对象就可以用实现该接口的任何东西进行单元测试。模拟)。

The trouble is you have to construct objects somewhere. A Factory pattern is one way to shift the coupling out of your POXOs (Plain Old "insert your OO language here" Objects). If you and your co-workers are all writing code like this then an IoC container is the next "Incremental Improvement" you can make to your codebase. It'll shift all that nasty Factory boilerplate code out of your clean objects and business logic. They'll get it and love it. Heck, give a company talk on why you love it and get everyone enthused.

如果你的同事还没有做DI,那么我建议你先专注于DI。宣传如何编写易于测试的干净代码。干净的DI代码是比较困难的部分,一旦做到了这一点,将对象连接逻辑从Factory类转移到IoC容器应该是相对简单的。

其他回答

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。

Ioc容器解决了一个你可能没有的问题,但这是一个很好的问题

http://kozmic.net/2012/10/23/ioc-container-solves-a-problem-you-might-not-have-but-its-a-nice-problem-to-have/

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?

想必没有人强迫您使用依赖注入容器框架。您已经使用DI来解耦类并改进可测试性,因此您将获得许多好处。简而言之,你喜欢简单,这通常是件好事。

如果您的系统达到了一个复杂的水平,手动DI变成了一件苦差事(也就是说,增加了维护),请将其与DI容器框架的团队学习曲线进行权衡。

如果您需要对依赖生命周期管理进行更多的控制(也就是说,如果您觉得需要实现单例模式),请查看DI容器。

如果使用DI容器,请只使用需要的特性。跳过XML配置文件,在代码中配置即可。坚持构造函数注入。Unity或StructureMap的基本内容可以压缩到几个页面中。

Mark Seemann写了一篇很棒的博文:什么时候使用DI容器

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.