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.

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.

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.

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.
   }
}

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。

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?