I believe, 3 important aspects govern objects and their usage: 1. Instantiation (of a class together with initialisation if any). 2. Injection (of the instance so created) where it's required. 3. Life cycle management (of the instance so created). Using Factory pattern, the first aspect (instantiation) is achieved but the remaining two is questionable. The class that uses other instances must hardcode the factories (instead of instances being created) which hinders loose coupling abilities. Moreover, life cycle management of instances becomes a challenge in a large application where a factory is used in multiple places (particularly, if the factory doesn't manage the life cycle of the instance it returns, it gets ugly). Using a DI (of IoC pattern) on the other hand, all the 3 are abstracted outside the code (to the DI container) and the managed bean needs nothing about this complexity. Loose Coupling, a very important architectural goal can be achieved quiet comfortably. Another important architectural goal, the separation of concerns can be achieved much better than factories.

尽管工厂可能适用于小型应用程序，但大型应用程序最好选择DI而不是工厂。

有些问题用依赖注入很容易解决，而用一套工厂就不那么容易解决了。

一方面，控制反转和依赖注入(IOC/DI)与另一方面，服务定位器或工厂套件(factory)之间的一些区别是:

IOC/DI is a complete ecosystem of domain objects and services in and of itself. It sets everything up for you in the way you specify. Your domain objects and services are constructed by the container, and do not construct themselves: they therefore do not have any dependencies on the container or on any factories. IOC/DI permits an extremely high degree of configurability, with all the configuration in a single place (construction of the container) at the topmost layer of your application (the GUI, the Web front-end).

工厂抽象了域对象和服务的一些构造。但是领域对象和服务仍然负责弄清楚如何构造自己，以及如何获得它们所依赖的所有东西。所有这些“活动的”依赖项都会在应用程序的所有层中进行筛选。没有一个地方可以配置所有的东西。

当使用工厂时，您的代码实际上仍然负责创建对象。通过DI，你可以将职责外包给另一个类或框架，这与你的代码是分开的。

如果传递的参数可以在工厂中分组，那么它也是构造函数过度注入的一个很好的解决方案，看看下面的代码*):

public AddressModelFactory(IAddressAttributeService addressAttributeService,
        IAddressAttributeParser addressAttributeParser,
        ILocalizationService localizationService,
        IStateProvinceService stateProvinceService,
        IAddressAttributeFormatter addressAttributeFormatter)
    {
        this._addressAttributeService = addressAttributeService;
        this._addressAttributeParser = addressAttributeParser;
        this._localizationService = localizationService;
        this._stateProvinceService = stateProvinceService;
        this._addressAttributeFormatter = addressAttributeFormatter;
    }

看看构造函数，你只需要在那里传递IAddressModelFactory，所以参数更少*):

 public CustomerController(IAddressModelFactory addressModelFactory,
        ICustomerModelFactory customerModelFactory,
        IAuthenticationService authenticationService,
        DateTimeSettings dateTimeSettings,
        TaxSettings taxSettings,
        ILocalizationService localizationService,
        IWorkContext workContext,
        IStoreContext storeContext,
        ICustomerService customerService,
        ICustomerAttributeParser customerAttributeParser,
        ICustomerAttributeService customerAttributeService,
        IGenericAttributeService genericAttributeService,
        ICustomerRegistrationService customerRegistrationService,
        ITaxService taxService,
        CustomerSettings customerSettings,
        AddressSettings addressSettings,...

你可以看到在CustomerController中传递了很多参数，是的，你可以看到这是构造函数的过度注入，但这就是DI的工作方式。CustomerController没有任何问题。

*)代码来自nopCommerce。

依赖注入的一个缺点是它不能用逻辑初始化对象。例如，当我需要创建一个随机名称和年龄的字符时，DI不是工厂模式的选择。使用工厂，我们可以很容易地从对象创建中封装随机算法，它支持一种称为“封装变化”的设计模式。

在我看来，使用依赖注入更好，如果你是: 1. 将代码部署在小分区中，因为它可以很好地解耦一个大代码。 2. 可测试性是DI可以使用的情况之一，因为你可以很容易地模拟非去耦的对象。通过使用接口，您可以轻松地模拟和测试每个对象。 3.你可以同时修改程序的每一部分，而不需要编码它的另一部分，因为它是松散解耦的。