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。

因为所有的依赖关系都是清晰可见的，所以它可以促进创建松散耦合的组件，同时在整个应用程序中易于访问和重用。

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。

I'm a recovering IOC addict. I'm finding it hard to justify using IOC for DI in most cases these days. IOC containers sacrifice compile time checking and supposedly in return give you "easy" setup, complex lifetime management and on the fly discovering of dependencies at run time. I find the loss of compile time checking and resulting run time magic/exceptions, is not worth the bells and whistles in the vast majority of cases. In large enterprise applications they can make it very difficult to follow what is going on.

我不相信集中化的说法，因为你可以通过为你的应用程序使用一个抽象工厂，并虔诚地将对象创建推迟到抽象工厂，即进行适当的DI，来非常容易地集中静态设置。

为什么不像这样做静态无魔法DI:

interface IServiceA { }
interface IServiceB { }
class ServiceA : IServiceA { }
class ServiceB : IServiceB { }

class StubServiceA : IServiceA { }
class StubServiceB : IServiceB { }

interface IRoot { IMiddle Middle { get; set; } }
interface IMiddle { ILeaf Leaf { get; set; } }
interface ILeaf { }

class Root : IRoot
{
    public IMiddle Middle { get; set; }

    public Root(IMiddle middle)
    {
        Middle = middle;
    }

}

class Middle : IMiddle
{
    public ILeaf Leaf { get; set; }

    public Middle(ILeaf leaf)
    {
        Leaf = leaf;
    }
}

class Leaf : ILeaf
{
    IServiceA ServiceA { get; set; }
    IServiceB ServiceB { get; set; }

    public Leaf(IServiceA serviceA, IServiceB serviceB)
    {
        ServiceA = serviceA;
        ServiceB = serviceB;
    }
}


interface IApplicationFactory
{
    IRoot CreateRoot();
}

abstract class ApplicationAbstractFactory : IApplicationFactory
{
    protected abstract IServiceA ServiceA { get; }
    protected abstract IServiceB ServiceB { get; }

    protected IMiddle CreateMiddle()
    {
        return new Middle(CreateLeaf());
    }

    protected ILeaf CreateLeaf()
    {
        return new Leaf(ServiceA,ServiceB);
    }


    public IRoot CreateRoot()
    {
        return new Root(CreateMiddle());
    }
}

class ProductionApplication : ApplicationAbstractFactory
{
    protected override IServiceA ServiceA
    {
        get { return new ServiceA(); }
    }

    protected override IServiceB ServiceB
    {
        get { return new ServiceB(); }
    }
}

class FunctionalTestsApplication : ApplicationAbstractFactory
{
    protected override IServiceA ServiceA
    {
        get { return new StubServiceA(); }
    }

    protected override IServiceB ServiceB
    {
        get { return new StubServiceB(); }
    }
}


namespace ConsoleApplication5
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            var factory = new ProductionApplication();
            var root = factory.CreateRoot();

        }
    }

    //[TestFixture]
    class FunctionalTests
    {
        //[Test]
        public void Test()
        {
            var factory = new FunctionalTestsApplication();
            var root = factory.CreateRoot();
        }
    }
}

容器配置是抽象工厂实现，注册是抽象成员的实现。 如果您需要一个新的单例依赖项，只需向抽象工厂添加另一个抽象属性即可。如果你需要一个瞬态依赖，只需添加另一个方法并将其作为Func<>注入即可。

优点:

所有的设置和对象创建配置都是集中的。 配置只是代码 编译时检查使其易于维护，因为您不会忘记更新注册。 没有运行时反射魔法

我建议持怀疑态度的人尝试下一个新项目，诚实地问问自己什么时候需要这种容器。稍后很容易引入IOC容器，因为您只是用IOC容器配置模块替换了一个工厂实现。

不需要IoC容器。

但是如果您严格遵循依赖注入模式，您会发现使用一个依赖注入模式将会删除大量冗余的、无聊的代码。

无论如何，这通常是使用一个库/框架的最佳时机——当你了解它在做什么并且不需要库也能完成它的时候。

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.