Why do I need an IoC container as opposed to straightforward DI code? [closed]

Answer 1

you do not need a framework to achieve dependency injection. You can do this by core java concepts as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection#Code_illustration_using_Java

Answer 2

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.

I don't buy the centralization argument because you can centralize static setup very easily as well by using an abstract factory for your application and religiously deferring object creation to the abstract factory i.e. do proper DI.

Why not do static magic-free DI like this:

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();
        }
    }
}

Your container configuration is your abstract factory implementation, your registrations are implementations of abstract members. If you need a new singleton dependency, just add another abstract property to the abstract factory. If you need a transient dependency, just add another method and inject it as a Func<>.

Advantages:

• All setup and object creation configuration is centralized .
• Configuration is just code
• Compile time checking makes it easy to maintain as you cannot forget to update your registrations.
• No run-time reflection magic

I recommend sceptics to give it a go next green field project and honestly ask yourself at which point you need the container. It's easy to factor in an IOC container later on as you're just replacing a factory implementation with a IOC Container configuration module.

Answer 3

Honestly I don't find there to be many cases where IoC containers are needed, and most of the time, they just add unneeded complexity.

If you are using it just for making construction of an object simpler, I'd have to ask, are you instantiating this object in more than one location? Would a singleton not suit your needs? Are you changing the configuration at runtime? (Switching data source types, etc).

If yes, then you might need an IoC container. If not, then you're just moving the initialization away from where the developer can easily see it.

Who said that an interface is better than inheritance anyway? Say you're testing a Service. Why not use constructor DI, and create mocks of the dependencies using inheritance? Most services I use only have a few dependencies. Doing unit testing this way prevents maintaining a ton of useless interfaces and means you don't have to use Resharper to quickly find the declaration of a method.

I believe that for most implementations, saying that IoC Containers remove unneeded code is a myth.

First, there's setting up the container in the first place. Then you still have to define each object that needs to be initialized. So you don't save code in initialization, you move it (unless your object is used more than once. Is it better as a Singleton?). Then, for each object you've initialized in this way, you have to create and maintain an interface.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Answer 4

You would need an IoC container if you needed to centralize the configuration of your dependencies so that they may be easily swapped out en mass. This makes the most sense in TDD, where many dependencies are swapped out, but where there is little interdependence between the dependencies. This is done at the cost of obfuscating the flow of control of object construction to some degree, so having a well organized and reasonably documented configuration is important. It is also good to have a reason to do this, otherwise, it is mere abstraction gold-plating. I have seen it done so poorly that it was dragged down to being the equivalent to a goto statement for constructors.

Answer 5

Whenever you use the "new" keyword, you are creating a concrete class dependency and a little alarm bell should go off in your head. It becomes harder to test this object in isolation. The solution is to program to interfaces and inject the dependency so that the object can be unit tested with anything that implements that interface (eg. mocks).

The trouble is you have to construct objects somewhere. A Factory pattern is one way to shift the coupling out of your POXOs (Plain Old "insert your OO language here" Objects). If you and your co-workers are all writing code like this then an IoC container is the next "Incremental Improvement" you can make to your codebase. It'll shift all that nasty Factory boilerplate code out of your clean objects and business logic. They'll get it and love it. Heck, give a company talk on why you love it and get everyone enthused.

If your co-workers aren't doing DI yet, then I'd suggest you focus on that first. Spread the word on how to write clean code that is easily testable. Clean DI code is the hard part, once you're there, shifting the object wiring logic from Factory classes to an IoC container should be relatively trivial.

Answer 6

So, it's been almost 3 years, eh?

1. 50% of those who commented in favor of IoC frameworks don't understand the difference between IoC and IoC Frameworks. I doubt they know that you can write code without being deployed to an app server

2. If we take most popular Java Spring framework, it is IoC configuration moved from XMl into the code and now look like this

`@Configuration public class AppConfig {

public @Bean TransferService transferService() {
    return new TransferServiceImpl(accountRepository());
}

public @Bean AccountRepository accountRepository() {
    return new InMemoryAccountRepository();
}

} ` And we need a framework to do this why exactly?