这是什么?

The books Agile Software Development, Principles, Patterns, and Practices and Agile Principles, Patterns, and Practices in C# are the best resources for fully understanding the original goals and motivations behind the Dependency Inversion Principle. The article "The Dependency Inversion Principle" is also a good resource, but due to the fact that it is a condensed version of a draft which eventually made its way into the previously mentioned books, it leaves out some important discussion on the concept of a package and interface ownership which are key to distinguishing this principle from the more general advise to "program to an interface, not an implementation" found within the book Design Patterns (Gamma, et. al).

To provide a summary, the Dependency Inversion Principle is primarily about reversing the conventional direction of dependencies from "higher level" components to "lower level" components such that "lower level" components are dependent upon the interfaces owned by the "higher level" components. (Note: "higher level" component here refers to the component requiring external dependencies/services, not necessarily its conceptual position within a layered architecture.) In doing so, coupling isn't reduced so much as it is shifted from components that are theoretically less valuable to components which are theoretically more valuable.

这是通过设计其外部依赖关系用接口表示的组件来实现的，该接口的实现必须由组件的使用者提供。换句话说，定义的接口表示组件需要什么，而不是如何使用组件。“INeedSomething”，而不是“IDoSomething”)。

依赖倒置原则没有提到的是通过使用接口(例如MyService→[ILogger⇐Logger])抽象依赖关系的简单实践。虽然这将组件从依赖项的特定实现细节中解耦，但它并没有反转使用者和依赖项之间的关系(例如[MyService→IMyServiceLogger]⇐Logger。

为什么它很重要?

依赖倒置原则的重要性可以归结为一个单一的目标，即能够重用依赖于外部依赖的软件组件来实现部分功能(日志记录、验证等)。

在这个重用的总体目标中，我们可以划分出两种重用子类型:

Using a software component within multiple applications with sub-dependency implementations (e.g. You've developed a DI container and want to provide logging, but don't want to couple your container to a specific logger such that everyone that uses your container has to also use your chosen logging library). Using software components within an evolving context (e.g. You've developed business-logic components which remain the same across multiple versions of an application where the implementation details are evolving).

With the first case of reusing components across multiple applications, such as with an infrastructure library, the goal is to provide a core infrastructure need to your consumers without coupling your consumers to sub-dependencies of your own library since coupling to such dependencies requires your consumers to require the same dependencies as well. This can be problematic when consumers of your library choose to use a different library for the same infrastructure needs (e.g. NLog vs. log4net), or if they choose to use a later version of the required library which isn't backward compatible with the version required by your library.

对于重用业务逻辑组件的第二种情况(即。“高级组件”)，目标是将应用程序的核心域实现与实现细节的不断变化的需求(即更改/升级持久性库、消息传递库、加密策略等)隔离开来。理想情况下，更改应用程序的实现细节不应该破坏封装应用程序业务逻辑的组件。

注意:有些人可能反对将第二种情况描述为实际的重用，认为在单个演进应用程序中使用的业务逻辑组件等组件只代表单一用途。然而，这里的思想是，对应用程序实现细节的每次更改都呈现一个新的上下文，因此呈现一个不同的用例，尽管最终目标可以区分为隔离和可移植性。

While following the Dependency Inversion Principle in this second case can offer some benefit, it should be noted that its value as applied to modern languages such as Java and C# is much reduced, perhaps to the point of being irrelevant. As discussed earlier, the DIP involves separating implementation details into separate packages completely. In the case of an evolving application, however, simply utilizing interfaces defined in terms of the business domain will guard against needing to modify higher-level components due to changing needs of implementation detail components, even if the implementation details ultimately reside within the same package. This portion of the principle reflects aspects that were pertinent to the language in view when the principle was codified (i.e. C++) which aren't relevant to newer languages. That said, the importance of the Dependency Inversion Principle primarily lies with the development of reusable software components/libraries.

在这里可以找到关于这个原则的更长的讨论，因为它与接口的简单使用、依赖注入和分离接口模式有关。此外，关于该原则如何与动态类型语言(如JavaScript)相关的讨论可以在这里找到。

依赖倒置的重点是制作可重用的软件。

其思想是，两段代码不再相互依赖，而是依赖于一些抽象的接口。然后你可以在没有另一块的情况下重复使用其中的任何一块。

最常见的实现方式是通过控制反转(IoC)容器，如Java中的Spring。在这个模型中，对象的属性是通过XML配置来设置的，而不是由对象自己去寻找它们的依赖项。

想象一下这个伪代码……

public class MyClass
{
  public Service myService = ServiceLocator.service;
}

MyClass直接依赖于Service类和ServiceLocator类。如果你想在另一个应用程序中使用它，这两个都需要。现在想象一下……

public class MyClass
{
  public IService myService;
}

现在，MyClass依赖于一个单独的接口，IService接口。我们让IoC容器实际设置那个变量的值。

所以现在，MyClass可以很容易地在其他项目中重用，而不会带来其他两个类的依赖关系。

更好的是，您不必拖动MyService的依赖项，以及这些依赖项的依赖项，以及…好吧，你懂的。

基本上它说:

类应该依赖于抽象(例如接口，抽象类)，而不是特定的细节(实现)。

如果我们可以假定公司的“高级”员工是通过执行他们的计划来获得报酬的，并且这些计划是由许多“低级”员工的计划的综合执行来交付的，那么我们可以说，如果高级员工的计划描述以任何方式与任何低级员工的具体计划耦合在一起，那么这通常是一个糟糕的计划。

If a high level executive has a plan to "improve delivery time", and indicates that an employee in the shipping line must have coffee and do stretches each morning, then that plan is highly coupled and has low cohesion. But if the plan makes no mention of any specific employee, and in fact simply requires "an entity that can perform work is prepared to work", then the plan is loosely coupled and more cohesive: the plans do not overlap and can easily be substituted. Contractors, or robots, can easily replace the employees and the high level's plan remains unchanged.

“高级”在依赖倒置原则中意味着“更重要”。

依赖倒置原则(DIP)就是这么说的

i)高级模块不应该依赖于低级模块。两者都应该依赖于抽象。

ii)抽象永远不应该依赖于细节。细节应该依赖于抽象。

例子:

    public interface ICustomer
    {
        string GetCustomerNameById(int id);
    }

    public class Customer : ICustomer
    {
        //ctor
        public Customer(){}

        public string GetCustomerNameById(int id)
        {
            return "Dummy Customer Name";
        }
    }

    public class CustomerFactory
    {
        public static ICustomer GetCustomerData()
        {
            return new Customer();
        }
    }

    public class CustomerBLL
    {
        ICustomer _customer;
        public CustomerBLL()
        {
            _customer = CustomerFactory.GetCustomerData();
        }

        public string GetCustomerNameById(int id)
        {
            return _customer.GetCustomerNameById(id);
        }
    }

    public class Program
    {
        static void Main()
        {
            CustomerBLL customerBLL = new CustomerBLL();
            int customerId = 25;
            string customerName = customerBLL.GetCustomerNameById(customerId);


            Console.WriteLine(customerName);
            Console.ReadKey();
        }
    }

注意:类应该依赖于抽象，如接口或抽象类，而不是特定的细节(接口的实现)。

依赖倒置原则的一个更清晰的表述方式是:

封装复杂业务逻辑的模块不应该直接依赖于封装业务逻辑的其他模块。相反，它们应该只依赖于简单数据的接口。

也就是说，不是像人们通常做的那样实现你的类逻辑:

class Dependency { ... }
class Logic {
    private Dependency dep;
    int doSomething() {
        // Business logic using dep here
    }
}

你应该这样做:

class Dependency { ... }
interface Data { ... }
class DataFromDependency implements Data {
    private Dependency dep;
    ...
}
class Logic {
    int doSomething(Data data) {
        // compute something with data
    }
}

Data和DataFromDependency应该与Logic在同一个模块中，而不是与Dependency在一起。

为什么要这么做?

这两个业务逻辑模块现在已解耦。当Dependency改变时，你不需要改变Logic。 理解Logic所做的是一个简单得多的任务:它只对看起来像ADT的东西起作用。 现在可以更容易地检验逻辑。现在，您可以直接实例化假数据Data并将其传入。不需要模拟或复杂的测试脚手架。