On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Attila Magyar <m.magy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think using a DI container worth the effort. They add lots of > complexities and solve very little. For some reason DI containers became > very popular in the Java world, but if you take a look at other programming > communities you'll realize that many people are perfectly happy without > using these containers. Using DI and using a DI container is orthogonal. As > you also said you can just pass dependencies to objects to achieve loose > coupling. Yes, you have to do this manually but what's the big deal? We're > talking about code with cyclomatic complexity of 1. Calling a constructor > is > not a problem that need to be solved. Using an external XML configuration > to > describe object wiring is the worst idea ever. > > Here is an article about using plain old object composition to do DI > > http://blog.davidpeterson.co.uk/2011/01/object-oriented-example.html > > Some more thoughts about the problems associated with DI containers: > > http://www.natpryce.com/articles/000783.html I liked this... "the [Dependency Injection] pattern also used to be called "third-party binding" or "third-party connect": some third party is responsible for connecting an object satisfying the service requirements of a component" This makes the subject seem less esoteric. It reminds me of hearing that the first (secret) task when doing a PhD is to invent new terms for common ones, and base your writings on that. Perhaps its the same for consultants and framework developers. ;P Or maybe everything seems esoteric until you have experience with it and I've not done much with Java, certainly not big applications. Thx Peter for your example and how you prior experience compares to Pharo. cheers -ben > http://higherorderlogic.com/2011/07/is-dependency-injection-like-facebook > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Wiring-o > bjects-IoC-and-Service-Locator-tp4949280p4949720.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
