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。

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)。

我将尝试从我的角度找出为什么IOC可能不好。

As with everything else, IOC container (or as Einstein would put it I=OC^2) is a concept you have to decide for yourself if you need it or not in your code. Recent fashion outcry about IOC is only that, fashion. Don't fall for fashion, that is first. There are myriads of concepts out there you could implement in your code. First of all, I am using dependency injection since I have started programming, and learned the term itself when it was popularized under that name. Dependency control is a very old subject and it was addressed so far in trillions of ways, depending on what was decoupling from what. Decoupling everything from everything is a nonsense. The problem with IOC container is that it tries to be as useful as Entity Framework or NHibernate. While writing an object-relational mapper is simply a must as soon as you have to couple any database with your system, IOC container is not always necessary. So when IOC container is useful:

当你有很多依赖的情况，你想组织 当你不关心你的代码与第三方产品的耦合时 当您的开发人员想要学习如何使用新工具时

1:在你的代码中有这么多依赖关系并不常见，或者你在设计的早期就意识到了它们。当需要抽象思维时，抽象思维是有用的。

2:将你的代码与第三方代码耦合是一个巨大的问题。我使用的是10多年前的代码，当时遵循的是ATL、COM、COM+等花哨而先进的概念。现在你对这些代码无能为力了。我想说的是，一个先进的概念会带来明显的优势，但从长远来看，这种优势本身就过时了。这只会让一切都变得更贵。

3: Software development is hard enough. You can extend it to unrecognizable levels if you allow some advanced concept to crop into your code. There is a problem with IOC2. Although it is decoupling dependencies, it is decoupling the logic flow as well. Imagine you have found a bug and you need to set a break to examine the situation. IOC2, as any other advanced concept, is making that more difficult. Fixing a bug within a concept is more difficult than fixing a bug in a plainer code, because when you fix a bug a concept must be obeyed again. (Just to give you an example, C++ .NET is constantly changing the syntax so much that you need to think hard before you refactor some older version of .NET.) So what is the problem with IOC? The problem is in resolving dependencies. The logic for resolving is commonly hidden in the IOC2 itself, written maybe in uncommon way that you need to learn and maintain. Will your third-party product be there in 5 years? Microsoft's was not.

"We know how" syndrome is written all over the place regarding IOC2. This is similar to automation testing. Fancy term and perfect solution at first glance, you simply put all your tests to execute over night and see the results in the morning. It is really painful to explain company after company what automated testing really means. Automated testing is definitely not a quick way of reducing the number of bugs which you can introduce overnight to increase the quality of your product. But, fashion is making that notion annoyingly dominant. IOC2 suffers the same syndrome. It is believed that you need to implement it in order your software to be good. EvErY recent interview I was asked if I am implementing IOC2 and automation. That is a sign of fashion: the company had some part of code written in MFC they will not abandon.

你需要像学习软件中的其他概念一样学习IOC2。是否需要使用IOC2是由团队和公司内部决定的。但是，在做出决定之前，至少必须提到以上所有的理由。只有当你看到积极的一面超过消极的一面，你才能做出积极的决定。

There is nothing wrong with IOC2 except that it does solve only the problems it solves and introduces the problems it introduces. Nothing else. However, going against the fashion is very difficult, they have sweat mouth, the followers of anything. It is strange how none of them is there when the problem with their fanciness becomes apparent. Many concepts in software industry have been defended because they create profit, books are written, conferences held, new products made. That is fashion, usually short lived. As soon as people find something else they abandon it completely. IOC2 is useful but it shows the same signs as many other vanished concepts I have seen. I do not know if it will survive. There is no rule for that. You think if it is useful, it will survive. No, it does not go that way. One big rich company is enough and the concept can die within few weeks. We'll see. NHibernate survived, EF came second. Maybe IOC2 will survive too. Do not forget that most concepts in software development are about nothing special, they are very logical, simple and obvious, and sometimes it is more difficult to remember the current naming convention than to understand the concept itself. Does the knowledge of IOC2 make a developer a better developer? No, because if a developer was not able to come up with a concept similar in nature to IOC2 then it will be difficult for him or her to understand which problem IOC2 is solving, using it will look artificial and he or she may start using it for sake of being some sort of politically correct.

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。

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.