在我看来，IoC的最大好处是能够集中配置依赖项。

如果你正在使用依赖注入，你的代码可能是这样的

public class CustomerPresenter
{
  public CustomerPresenter() : this(new CustomerView(), new CustomerService())
  {}

  public CustomerPresenter(ICustomerView view, ICustomerService service)
  {
    // init view/service fields
  }
  // readonly view/service fields
}

如果你使用静态IoC类，而不是(恕我直言)更混乱的配置文件，你可以有这样的东西:

public class CustomerPresenter
{
  public CustomerPresenter() : this(IoC.Resolve<ICustomerView>(), IoC.Resolve<ICustomerService>())
  {}

  public CustomerPresenter(ICustomerView view, ICustomerService service)
  {
    // init view/service fields
  }
  // readonly view/service fields
}

然后，你的静态IoC类看起来像这样，我在这里使用Unity。

public static IoC
{
   private static readonly IUnityContainer _container;
   static IoC()
   {
     InitializeIoC();
   }

   static void InitializeIoC()
   {
      _container = new UnityContainer();
      _container.RegisterType<ICustomerView, CustomerView>();
      _container.RegisterType<ICustomerService, CustomerService>();
      // all other RegisterTypes and RegisterInstances can go here in one file.
      // one place to change dependencies is good.
   }
}

在。net世界里AOP还不是很流行，所以对于依赖注入来说，一个框架是你唯一真正的选择，不管你是自己写一个框架还是使用另一个框架。

如果您使用AOP，则可以在编译应用程序时进行注入，这在Java中更为常见。

DI有很多好处，比如减少耦合，从而使单元测试更容易，但是您将如何实现它呢?你想用反射来自己做吗?

对我来说，使用IoC容器的最大好处(我个人使用Ninject)是消除了设置和其他类型的全局状态对象的传递。

我不为web编程，我的是一个控制台应用程序，在对象树的许多地方，我需要访问用户指定的设置或元数据，这些设置或元数据是在对象树的一个完全独立的分支上创建的。通过IoC，我简单地告诉Ninject将设置作为一个单例(因为它们总是只有一个实例)，在构造函数中请求设置或字典，然后立即…它们在我需要的时候神奇地出现了!

如果不使用IoC容器，我将不得不通过2,3，…传递设置和/或元数据。在它被需要它的对象实际使用之前，有n个对象。

DI/IoC容器还有许多其他好处，正如其他人在这里详细介绍的那样，从创建对象到请求对象的想法可能会令人难以置信，但使用DI对我和我的团队非常有帮助，所以也许您可以将其添加到您的库中!

关于Unity也是如此。如果房子太大，你会听到房梁的吱吱声。

当人们开始大谈IoC代码看起来有多干净时，我从不感到惊讶，这些人在90年代曾说过c++中的模板是如何优雅的方式，但现在却会谴责它们是神秘的。呸!

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.

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。