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

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.

其他回答

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。

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。

As you continue to decouple your classes and invert your dependencies, the classes continue to stay small and the "dependency graph" continues to grow in size. (This isn't bad.) Using basic features of an IoC container makes wiring up all these objects trivial, but doing it manually can get very burdensome. For example, what if I want to create a new instance of "Foo" but it needs a "Bar". And a "Bar" needs an "A", "B", and "C". And each of those need 3 other things, etc etc. (yes, I can't come up with good fake names :) ).

使用IoC容器为您构建对象图可以大大降低复杂性,并将其推到一次性配置中。我只需说“给我创建一个Foo”,它就会计算出构建一个Foo需要什么。

有些人将IoC容器用于更多的基础设施,这对于高级场景来说是很好的,但在这些情况下,我同意它会使新开发人员难以阅读和调试代码。

我支持你,瓦迪姆。IoC容器采用了一个简单、优雅且有用的概念,并使其成为您需要用200页手册学习两天的东西。

我个人很困惑,为什么IoC社区把Martin Fowler写的一篇漂亮、优雅的文章变成了一堆复杂的框架,通常只有200-300页的手册。

我尽量不去评判(哈哈!),但我认为使用IoC容器的人(A)非常聪明,(B)对不如他们聪明的人缺乏同理心。对他们来说,每件事都很有意义,所以他们很难理解许多普通程序员会感到困惑的概念。这是知识的诅咒。理解IoC容器的人很难相信还有人不理解它。

The most valuable benefit of using an IoC container is that you can have a configuration switch in one place which lets you change between, say, test mode and production mode. For example, suppose you have two versions of your database access classes... one version which logged aggressively and did a lot of validation, which you used during development, and another version without logging or validation that was screamingly fast for production. It is nice to be able to switch between them in one place. On the other hand, this is a fairly trivial problem easily handled in a simpler way without the complexity of IoC containers.

我相信如果您使用IoC容器,您的代码将变得(坦白地说)难以阅读。为了弄清楚代码要做什么,您必须查看的地方的数量至少增加了一个。在天堂的某个地方,一位天使在呼喊。

我是声明式编程的爱好者(看看我回答了多少SQL问题),但我所研究的IoC容器似乎太神秘了。

...或者IoC容器的开发人员无法编写清晰的文档。

...或者两者在某种程度上都是正确的。

我不认为IoC容器的概念不好。但是实现必须足够强大(即灵活),以便在各种各样的应用程序中都有用,同时又要简单易懂。

可能是其他的六个中的六个。真正的应用程序(不是玩具或演示)必然是复杂的,会有许多极端情况和规则的例外。您可以将这种复杂性封装在命令式代码中,也可以封装在声明式代码中。但你必须在某个地方表示它。