Related
I was wondering, I recently read an article that spoke of the ills of using the singleton pattern siting the disadvantage of global variable occurrence and rightly that the singleton violates alot of the rules we learn from OOP school, single responsibility principle, programming to interfaces and abstract classes and not to concrete classes... all that good stuff. I was wondering how then do you work with like database connection class where you want just one connection to your DB and one object of your DB floating around. The author spoke of Dependency Injection principle which to my mind stands well with the Dependency Inversion rule. How do I know and control what object gets passed around as a dependency other than the fact that I created the class and expect everyone using it play nice and make sure they are using the right resource?!
Edit: This answer assumes you are using a dependency injection container, either one you wrote yourself, or one you got from a library. If not, then use a DI container :)
How do I know and control what object gets passed around as a dependency other than the fact that I created the class and expect everyone using it play nice and make sure they are using the right resource?!
By contract
The oral contract - You write a design spec that says "thou shalt not instantiate this class directly" and "thou shalt not pass around any object you got from the dependency injection container. Pass the container if you have to".
The compiler contract - You give them a dependency injection container, and they grab the instance out of it, by abstract interface. If you want only a single instance to be used, you can supply them a named instance, which they extract with both the name, and the interface.
ISomething instance = serviceLocator.ResolveInstance<ISomething>(
"TheInstanceImSupposedToUse");
You can also make all your concrete classes private/internal/what-have-you, and only provide them an abstract interface to operate against. This will prevent them from instantiating the classes themselves.
// This can only be instantiated by you, but can be used by them via ISomething
private class ConcreteSomething : ISomething
{
// ...
}
By code review
You make group-wide coding and design standards that are fair, and make sure they are understood by everyone within the group.
You use a source control mechanism, and require code reviews before they check in. You read over their code for what they link to, what headers they include, what objects they instantiate, and what instances they are passing around.
If they violate your rules during code reviews, you don't let them check in until they fix their code. Optionally, for repeat offenders, you make them pay you a dollar, you make them buy you lunch, or you hire a different contractor to replace them. Whatever works well within your group :)
For those who criticize the singleton pattern, based on SRP, here is an opposing view. Also, I've found that dependency injection containers can create as many problems as they solve. That said, I'm using a promising compromise, as covered in another post.
Dependency injection containers (even one you develop yourself, which isn't an entirely uncommon practice) are generally very configurable. What you'd do in that scenario is configure it such that any request for the interface that implementation, well, implements would be satisfied with that implementation. Even if it's a singleton.
For example, take a look at the Logger singleton being used here: http://www.pnpguidance.net/News/StructureMapTutorialDependencyInjectionIoCNET.aspx
Don't take what you read anywhere as absolute truth. Read it, understand it and then you can see when it's best to apply certain things. In your case, why wouldn't you want to create a static singleton?
When do you encourage programming against an interface and not directly to a concrete class?
A guideline that I follow is to create abstractions whenever code requires to cross a logical/physical boundary, most especially when infrastructure-related concerns are involved.
Another checkpoint would be if a dependency will likely change in the future, due to possible additional concerns code (such as caching, transactional awareness, invoking a webservice instead of in-process execution) or if such dependencies have direct references to infrastructure integration points.
If code depends on something that does not require control to cross a logical/physical boundary, I more or less don't create abstractions to interact with those.
Am I missing anything?
Also, use interfaces when
Multiple objects will need to be acted upon in a particular fashion, but are not fundamentally related. Perhaps many of your business objects access a particular utility object, and when they do they need to give a reference of themselves to that utility object so the utility object can call a particular method. Have that method in an interface and pass that interface to that utility object.
Passing around interfaces as parameters can be very helpful in unit testing. Even if you have just one type of object that sports a particular interface, and hence don't really need a defined interface, you might define/implement an interface solely to "fake" that object in unit tests.
related to the first 2 bullets, check out the Observer pattern and the Dependency Injection. I'm not saying to implement these patterns, but they illustrate types of places where interfaces are really helpful.
Another twist on this is for implementing a couple of the SOLID Principals, Open Closed principal and the Interface Segregation principle. Like the previous bullet, don't get stressed about strictly implementing these principals everywhere (right away at least), but use these concepts to help move your thinking away from just what objects go where to thinking more about contracts and dependency
In the end, let's not make it too complicated: we're in a strongly typed world in .NET. If you need to call a method or set a property but the object you're passing/using could be fundamentally different, use an interface.
I would add that if your code is not going to be referenced by another library (for a while at least), then the decision of whether to use an interface in a particular situation is one that you can responsibly put off. The "extract interface" refactoring is easy to do these days. In my current project, I've got an object being passed around that I'm thinking maybe I should switch to an interface; I'm not stressing about it.
Interfaces abstraction are convenient when doing unit test. It helps for mocking test objects. It very useful in TDD for developing without actually using data from your database.
If you don't need any features of the class that aren't found in the Interface...then why not always prefer the Interface implementation?
It will make your code easier to modify in the future and easier to test (mocking).
you have the right idea, already. i would only add a couple of notes to this...
first, abstraction does not mean 'interface'. for example, a "connection string" is an abstraction, even though it's just a string... it's not about the 'type' of the thing in question, it's about the intention of use for that thing.
and secondly, if you are doing test automation of any kind, look for the pain and friction that are exposed by writing the tests. if you find yourself having to set up too many external conditions for a test, it's a sign that you need a better abstraction between the thing your testing and the things it interacts with.
I think you've said it pretty well. Much of this will be a stylistic thing. There are open source projects I've looked at where everything has an interface and an implementation, and it's kind of frustrating, but it might make iterative development a little easier, since any objects implementation can break but dummies will still work. But honestly, I can dummy any class that doesn't overuse the final keyword by inheritance.
I would add to your list this: anything which can be thought of as a black box should be abstracted. This includes some of the things you've mentioned, but it also includes hairy algorithms, which are likely to have multiple useful implementations with different advantages for different situation.
Additionally, interfaces come in handy very often with composite objects. That's the only way something like java's swing library gets anything done, but it can also be useful for more mundane objects. (I personally like having an interface like ValidityChecker with ways to and-compose or or-compose subordinate ValidityCheckers.)
Most of the useful things that come with the Interface passing have been already said. However I would add:
implementing an interface to an object, or later multiple objects, FORCES all the implementers to follow an IDENTICAL pattern to implement contract with the object. This can be useful in case you have not so OOP-experienced-programmers actually writing the implementation code.
in some languages you can add attributes on the interface itself, which can be different from the actual object implementation attribute as sense and intent
If I understand correctly, the typical mechanism for Dependency Injection is to inject either through a class' constructor or through a public property (member) of the class.
This exposes the dependency being injected and violates the OOP principle of encapsulation.
Am I correct in identifying this tradeoff? How do you deal with this issue?
Please also see my answer to my own question below.
There is another way of looking at this issue that you might find interesting.
When we use IoC/dependency injection, we're not using OOP concepts. Admittedly we're using an OO language as the 'host', but the ideas behind IoC come from component-oriented software engineering, not OO.
Component software is all about managing dependencies - an example in common use is .NET's Assembly mechanism. Each assembly publishes the list of assemblies that it references, and this makes it much easier to pull together (and validate) the pieces needed for a running application.
By applying similar techniques in our OO programs via IoC, we aim to make programs easier to configure and maintain. Publishing dependencies (as constructor parameters or whatever) is a key part of this. Encapsulation doesn't really apply, as in the component/service oriented world, there is no 'implementation type' for details to leak from.
Unfortunately our languages don't currently segregate the fine-grained, object-oriented concepts from the coarser-grained component-oriented ones, so this is a distinction that you have to hold in your mind only :)
It's a good question - but at some point, encapsulation in its purest form needs to be violated if the object is ever to have its dependency fulfilled. Some provider of the dependency must know both that the object in question requires a Foo, and the provider has to have a way of providing the Foo to the object.
Classically this latter case is handled as you say, through constructor arguments or setter methods. However, this is not necessarily true - I know that the latest versions of the Spring DI framework in Java, for example, let you annotate private fields (e.g. with #Autowired) and the dependency will be set via reflection without you needing to expose the dependency through any of the classes public methods/constructors. This might be the kind of solution you were looking for.
That said, I don't think that constructor injection is much of a problem, either. I've always felt that objects should be fully valid after construction, such that anything they need in order to perform their role (i.e. be in a valid state) should be supplied through the constructor anyway. If you have an object that requires a collaborator to work, it seems fine to me that the constructor publically advertises this requirement and ensures it is fulfilled when a new instance of the class is created.
Ideally when dealing with objects, you interact with them through an interface anyway, and the more you do this (and have dependencies wired through DI), the less you actually have to deal with constructors yourself. In the ideal situation, your code doesn't deal with or even ever create concrete instances of classes; so it just gets given an IFoo through DI, without worrying about what the constructor of FooImpl indicates it needs to do its job, and in fact without even being aware of FooImpl's existance. From this point of view, the encapsulation is perfect.
This is an opinion of course, but to my mind DI doesn't necessarily violate encapsulation and in fact can help it by centralising all of the necessary knowledge of internals into one place. Not only is this a good thing in itself, but even better this place is outside your own codebase, so none of the code you write needs to know about classes' dependencies.
This exposes the dependency being injected and violates the OOP principle of encapsulation.
Well, frankly speaking, everything violates encapsulation. :) It's a kind of a tender principle that must be treated well.
So, what violates encapsulation?
Inheritance does.
"Because inheritance exposes a subclass to details of its parent's implementation, it's often said that 'inheritance breaks encapsulation'". (Gang of Four 1995:19)
Aspect-oriented programming does. For example, you register onMethodCall() callback and that gives you a great opportunity to inject code to the normal method evaluation, adding strange side-effects etc.
Friend declaration in C++ does.
Class extention in Ruby does. Just redefine a string method somewhere after a string class was fully defined.
Well, a lot of stuff does.
Encapsulation is a good and important principle. But not the only one.
switch (principle)
{
case encapsulation:
if (there_is_a_reason)
break!
}
Yes, DI violates encapsulation (also known as "information hiding").
But the real problem comes when developers use it as an excuse to violate the KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) and YAGNI (You Ain't Gonna Need It) principles.
Personally, I prefer simple and effective solutions. I mostly use the "new" operator to instantiate stateful dependencies whenever and wherever they are needed. It is simple, well encapsulated, easy to understand, and easy to test. So, why not?
A good depenancy injection container/system will allow for constructor injection. The dependant objects will be encapsulated, and need not be exposed publicly at all. Further, by using a DP system, none of your code even "knows" the details of how the object is constructed, possibly even including the object being constructed. There is more encapsulation in this case since nearly all of your code not only is shielded from knowledge of the encapsulated objects, but does not even participate in the objects construction.
Now, I am assuming you are comparing against the case where the created object creates its own encapsulated objects, most likely in its constructor. My understanding of DP is that we want to take this responsibility away from the object and give it to someone else. To that end, the "someone else", which is the DP container in this case, does have intimate knowledge which "violates" encapsulation; the benefit is that it pulls that knowledge out of the object, iteself. Someone has to have it. The rest of your application does not.
I would think of it this way: The dependancy injection container/system violates encapsulation, but your code does not. In fact, your code is more "encapsulated" then ever.
This is similar to the upvoted answer but I want to think out loud - perhaps others see things this way as well.
Classical OO uses constructors to define the public "initialization" contract for consumers of the class (hiding ALL implementation details; aka encapsulation). This contract can ensure that after instantiation you have a ready-to-use object (i.e. no additional initialization steps to be remembered (er, forgotten) by the user).
(constructor) DI undeniably breaks encapsulation by bleeding implemenation detail through this public constructor interface. As long as we still consider the public constructor responsible for defining the initialization contract for users, we have created a horrible violation of encapsulation.
Theoretical Example:
Class Foo has 4 methods and needs an integer for initialization, so its constructor looks like Foo(int size) and it's immediately clear to users of class Foo that they must provide a size at instantiation in order for Foo to work.
Say this particular implementation of Foo may also need a IWidget to do its job. Constructor injection of this dependency would have us create a constructor like Foo(int size, IWidget widget)
What irks me about this is now we have a constructor that's blending initialization data with dependencies - one input is of interest to the user of the class (size), the other is an internal dependency that only serves to confuse the user and is an implementation detail (widget).
The size parameter is NOT a dependency - it's simple a per-instance initialization value. IoC is dandy for external dependencies (like widget) but not for internal state initialization.
Even worse, what if the Widget is only necessary for 2 of the 4 methods on this class; I may be incurring instantiation overhead for Widget even though it may not be used!
How to compromise/reconcile this?
One approach is to switch exclusively to interfaces to define the operation contract; and abolish the use of constructors by users.
To be consistent, all objects would have to be accessed through interfaces only, and instantiated only through some form of resolver (like an IOC/DI container). Only the container gets to instantiate things.
That takes care of the Widget dependency, but how do we initialize "size" without resorting to a separate initialization method on the Foo interface? Using this solution, we lost the ability to ensure that an instance of Foo is fully initialized by the time you get the instance. Bummer, because I really like the idea and simplicity of constructor injection.
How do I achieve guaranteed initialization in this DI world, when initialization is MORE than ONLY external dependencies?
As Jeff Sternal pointed out in a comment to the question, the answer is entirely dependent on how you define encapsulation.
There seem to be two main camps of what encapsulation means:
Everything related to the object is a method on an object. So, a File object may have methods to Save, Print, Display, ModifyText, etc.
An object is its own little world, and does not depend on outside behavior.
These two definitions are in direct contradiction to each other. If a File object can print itself, it will depend heavily on the printer's behavior. On the other hand, if it merely knows about something that can print for it (an IFilePrinter or some such interface), then the File object doesn't have to know anything about printing, and so working with it will bring less dependencies into the object.
So, dependency injection will break encapsulation if you use the first definition. But, frankly I don't know if I like the first definition - it clearly doesn't scale (if it did, MS Word would be one big class).
On the other hand, dependency injection is nearly mandatory if you're using the second definition of encapsulation.
It doesn't violate encapsulation. You're providing a collaborator, but the class gets to decide how it is used. As long as you follow Tell don't ask things are fine. I find constructer injection preferable, but setters can be fine as well as long as they're smart. That is they contain logic to maintain the invariants the class represents.
Pure encapsulation is an ideal that can never be achieved. If all dependencies were hidden then you wouldn't have the need for DI at all. Think about it this way, if you truly have private values that can be internalized within the object, say for instance the integer value of the speed of a car object, then you have no external dependency and no need to invert or inject that dependency. These sorts of internal state values that are operated on purely by private functions are what you want to encapsulate always.
But if you're building a car that wants a certain kind of engine object then you have an external dependency. You can either instantiate that engine -- for instance new GMOverHeadCamEngine() -- internally within the car object's constructor, preserving encapsulation but creating a much more insidious coupling to a concrete class GMOverHeadCamEngine, or you can inject it, allowing your Car object to operate agnostically (and much more robustly) on for example an interface IEngine without the concrete dependency. Whether you use an IOC container or simple DI to achieve this is not the point -- the point is that you've got a Car that can use many kinds of engines without being coupled to any of them, thus making your codebase more flexible and less prone to side effects.
DI is not a violation of encapsulation, it is a way of minimizing the coupling when encapsulation is necessarily broken as a matter of course within virtually every OOP project. Injecting a dependency into an interface externally minimizes coupling side effects and allows your classes to remain agnostic about implementation.
It depends on whether the dependency is really an implementation detail or something that the client would want/need to know about in some way or another. One thing that is relevant is what level of abstraction the class is targeting. Here are some examples:
If you have a method that uses caching under the hood to speed up calls, then the cache object should be a Singleton or something and should not be injected. The fact that the cache is being used at all is an implementation detail that the clients of your class should not have to care about.
If your class needs to output streams of data, it probably makes sense to inject the output stream so that the class can easily output the results to an array, a file, or wherever else someone else might want to send the data.
For a gray area, let's say you have a class that does some monte carlo simulation. It needs a source of randomness. On the one hand, the fact that it needs this is an implementation detail in that the client really doesn't care exactly where the randomness comes from. On the other hand, since real-world random number generators make tradeoffs between degree of randomness, speed, etc. that the client may want to control, and the client may want to control seeding to get repeatable behavior, injection may make sense. In this case, I'd suggest offering a way of creating the class without specifying a random number generator, and use a thread-local Singleton as the default. If/when the need for finer control arises, provide another constructor that allows for a source of randomness to be injected.
Having struggled with the issue a little further, I am now in the opinion that Dependency Injection does (at this time) violate encapsulation to some degree. Don't get me wrong though - I think that using dependency injection is well worth the tradeoff in most cases.
The case for why DI violates encapsulation becomes clear when the component you are working on is to be delivered to an "external" party (think of writing a library for a customer).
When my component requires sub-components to be injected via the constructor (or public properties) there's no guarantee for
"preventing users from setting the internal data of the component into an invalid or inconsistent state".
At the same time it cannot be said that
"users of the component (other pieces of software) only need to know what the component does, and cannot make themselves dependent on the details of how it does it".
Both quotes are from wikipedia.
To give a specific example: I need to deliver a client-side DLL that simplifies and hides communication to a WCF service (essentially a remote facade). Because it depends on 3 different WCF proxy classes, if I take the DI approach I am forced to expose them via the constructor. With that I expose the internals of my communication layer which I am trying to hide.
Generally I am all for DI. In this particular (extreme) example, it strikes me as dangerous.
I struggled with this notion as well. At first, the 'requirement' to use the DI container (like Spring) to instantiate an object felt like jumping thru hoops. But in reality, it's really not a hoop - it's just another 'published' way to create objects I need. Sure, encapsulation is 'broken' becuase someone 'outside the class' knows what it needs, but it really isn't the rest of the system that knows that - it's the DI container. Nothing magical happens differently because DI 'knows' one object needs another.
In fact it gets even better - by focusing on Factories and Repositories I don't even have to know DI is involved at all! That to me puts the lid back on encapsulation. Whew!
I belive in simplicity. Applying IOC/Dependecy Injection in Domain classes does not make any improvement except making the code much more harder to main by having an external xml files describing the relation. Many technologies like EJB 1.0/2.0 & struts 1.1 are reversing back by reducing the stuff the put in XML and try put them in code as annoation etc. So applying IOC for all the classes you develope will make the code non-sense.
IOC has it benefits when the dependent object is not ready for creation at compile time. This can happend in most of the infrasture abstract level architecture components, trying establish a common base framework which may need to work for different scenarios. In those places usage IOC makes more sense. Still this does not make the code more simple / maintainable.
As all the other technologies, this too has PROs & CONs. My worry is, we implement latest technologies in all the places irrespective of their best context usage.
Encapsulation is only broken if a class has both the responsibility to create the object (which requires knowledge of implementation details) and then uses the class (which does not require knowledge of these details). I'll explain why, but first a quick car anaology:
When I was driving my old 1971 Kombi,
I could press the accelerator and it
went (slightly) quicker. I did not
need to know why, but the guys who
built the Kombi at the factory knew
exactly why.
But back to the coding. Encapsulation is "hiding an implementation detail from something using that implementation." Encapsulation is a good thing because the implementation details can change without the user of the class knowing.
When using dependency injection, constructor injection is used to construct service type objects (as opposed to entity/value objects which model state). Any member variables in service type object represent implementation details that should not leak out. e.g. socket port number, database credentials, another class to call to perform encryption, a cache, etc.
The constructor is relevant when the class is being initially created. This happens during the construction-phase while your DI container (or factory) wires together all the service objects. The DI container only knows about implementation details. It knows all about implementation details like the guys at the Kombi factory know about spark plugs.
At run-time, the service object that was created is called apon to do some real work. At this time, the caller of the object knows nothing of the implementation details.
That's me driving my Kombi to the beach.
Now, back to encapsulation. If implementation details change, then the class using that implementation at run-time does not need to change. Encapsulation is not broken.
I can drive my new car to the beach too. Encapsulation is not broken.
If implementation details change, the DI container (or factory) does need to change. You were never trying to hide implementation details from the factory in the first place.
DI violates Encapsulation for NON-Shared objects - period. Shared objects have a lifespan outside of the object being created, and thus must be AGGREGATED into the object being created. Objects that are private to the object being created should be COMPOSED into the created object - when the created object is destroyed, it takes the composed object with it.
Let's take the human body as an example. What's composed and what's aggregated. If we were to use DI, the human body constructor would have 100's of objects. Many of the organs, for example, are (potentially) replaceable. But, they are still composed into the body. Blood cells are created in the body (and destroyed) everyday, without the need for external influences (other than protein). Thus, blood cells are created internally by the body - new BloodCell().
Advocators of DI argue that an object should NEVER use the new operator.
That "purist" approach not only violates encapsulation but also the Liskov Substitution Principle for whoever is creating the object.
PS. By providing Dependency Injection you do not necessarily break Encapsulation. Example:
obj.inject_dependency( factory.get_instance_of_unknown_class(x) );
Client code does not know implementation details still.
Maybe this is a naive way of thinking about it, but what is the difference between a constructor that takes in an integer parameter and a constructor that takes in a service as a parameter? Does this mean that defining an integer outside the new object and feeding it into the object breaks encapsulation? If the service is only used within the new object, I don't see how that would break encapsulation.
Also, by using some sort of autowiring feature (Autofac for C#, for example), it makes the code extremely clean. By building extension methods for the Autofac builder, I was able to cut out a LOT of DI configuration code that I would have had to maintain over time as the list of dependencies grew.
I think it's self evident that at the very least DI significantly weakens encapsulation. In additional to that here are some other downsides of DI to consider.
It makes code harder to reuse. A module which a client can use without having to explicitly provide dependencies to, is obviously easier to use than one where the client has to somehow discover what that component's dependencies are and then somehow make them available. For example a component originally created to be used in an ASP application may expect to have its dependencies provided by a DI container that provides object instances with lifetimes related to client http requests. This may not be simple to reproduce in another client that does not come with the same built in DI container as the original ASP application.
It can make code more fragile. Dependencies provided by interface specification can be implemented in unexpected ways which gives rise to a whole class of runtime bugs that are not possible with a statically resolved concrete dependency.
It can make code less flexible in the sense that you may end up with fewer choices about how you want it to work. Not every class needs to have all its dependencies in existence for the entire lifetime of the owning instance, yet with many DI implementations you have no other option.
With that in mind I think the most important question then becomes, "does a particular dependency need to be externally specified at all?". In practise I have rarely found it necessary to make a dependency externally supplied just to support testing.
Where a dependency genuinely needs to be externally supplied, that normally suggests that the relation between the objects is a collaboration rather than an internal dependency, in which case the appropriate goal is then encapsulation of each class, rather than encapsulation of one class inside the other.
In my experience the main problem regarding the use of DI is that whether you start with an application framework with built in DI, or you add DI support to your codebase, for some reason people assume that since you have DI support that must be the correct way to instantiate everything. They just never even bother to ask the question "does this dependency need to be externally specified?". And worse, they also start trying to force everyone else to use the DI support for everything too.
The result of this is that inexorably your codebase starts to devolve into a state where creating any instance of anything in your codebase requires reams of obtuse DI container configuration, and debugging anything is twice as hard because you have the extra workload of trying to identify how and where anything was instantiated.
So my answer to the question is this. Use DI where you can identify an actual problem that it solves for you, which you can't solve more simply any other way.
I agree that taken to an extreme, DI can violate encapsulation. Usually DI exposes dependencies which were never truly encapsulated. Here's a simplified example borrowed from Miško Hevery's Singletons are Pathological Liars:
You start with a CreditCard test and write a simple unit test.
#Test
public void creditCard_Charge()
{
CreditCard c = new CreditCard("1234 5678 9012 3456", 5, 2008);
c.charge(100);
}
Next month you get a bill for $100. Why did you get charged? The unit test affected a production database. Internally, CreditCard calls Database.getInstance(). Refactoring CreditCard so that it takes a DatabaseInterface in its constructor exposes the fact that there's dependency. But I would argue that the dependency was never encapsulated to begin with since the CreditCard class causes externally visible side effects. If you want to test CreditCard without refactoring, you can certainly observe the dependency.
#Before
public void setUp()
{
Database.setInstance(new MockDatabase());
}
#After
public void tearDown()
{
Database.resetInstance();
}
I don't think it's worth worrying whether exposing the Database as a dependency reduces encapsulation, because it's a good design. Not all DI decisions will be so straight forward. However, none of the other answers show a counter example.
I think it's a matter of scope. When you define encapsulation (not letting know how) you must define what is the encapsuled functionality.
Class as is: what you are encapsulating is the only responsability of the class. What it knows how to do. By example, sorting. If you inject some comparator for ordering, let's say, clients, that's not part of the encapsuled thing: quicksort.
Configured functionality: if you want to provide a ready-to-use functionality then you are not providing QuickSort class, but an instance of QuickSort class configured with a Comparator. In that case the code responsible for creating and configuring that must be hidden from the user code. And that's the encapsulation.
When you are programming classes, it is, implementing single responsibilities into classes, you are using option 1.
When you are programming applications, it is, making something that undertakes some useful concrete work then you are repeteadily using option 2.
This is the implementation of the configured instance:
<bean id="clientSorter" class="QuickSort">
<property name="comparator">
<bean class="ClientComparator"/>
</property>
</bean>
This is how some other client code use it:
<bean id="clientService" class"...">
<property name="sorter" ref="clientSorter"/>
</bean>
It is encapsulated because if you change implementation (you change clientSorter bean definition) it doesn't break client use. Maybe, as you use xml files with all written together you are seeing all the details. But believe me, the client code (ClientService)
don't know nothing about its sorter.
It's probably worth mentioning that Encapsulation is somewhat perspective dependent.
public class A {
private B b;
public A() {
this.b = new B();
}
}
public class A {
private B b;
public A(B b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
From the perspective of someone working on the A class, in the second example A knows a lot less about the nature of this.b
Whereas without DI
new A()
vs
new A(new B())
The person looking at this code knows more about the nature of A in the second example.
With DI, at least all that leaked knowledge is in one place.
Many people use Mock Objects when they are writing unit tests. What is a Mock Object? Why would I ever need one? Do I need a Mock Object Framework?
Object Mocking is used to keep dependencies out of your unit test.
Sometimes you'll have a test like "SelectPerson" which will select a person from the database and return a Person object.
To do this, you would normally need a dependency on the database, however with object mocking you can simulate the interaction with the database with a mock framework, so it might return a dataset which looks like one returned from the database and you can then test your code to ensure that it handles translating a dataset to a person object, rather than using it to test that a connection to the database exists.
Several people have already answered the 'what', but here are a couple of quick 'whys' that I can think of:
Performance
Because unit tests should be fast, testing a component that
interacts with a network, a database, or other time-intensive
resource does not need to pay the penalty if it's done using mock
objects. The savings add up quickly.
Collaboration
If you are writing a nicely encapsulated piece of
code that needs to interact with someone else's code (that hasn't
been written yet, or is in being developed in parallel - a common
scenario), you can exercise your code with mock objects once an
interface has been agreed upon. Otherwise your code may not begin to
be tested until the other component is finished.
A mock object lets you test against just what you are writing, and abstract details such as accessing a resource (disk, a network service, etc). The mock then lets you pretend to be that external resource, or class or whatever.
You don't really need a mock object framework, just extend the class of the functionality you don't want to worry about in your test and make sure the class you are testing can use your mock instead of the real thing (pass it in via a constructor or setter or something.
Practice will show when mocks are helpful and when they aren't.
EDIT: Mocking resources is especially important so you don't have to rely on them to exist during the test, and you can mock the details of how they exist and what they respond (such as simulating a FileNotFoundException, or a webservice that is missing, or various possible return values of a webservice)... all without the slow access times involved (mocking will prove MUCH faster than accessing such resources in the test).
Do I need a Mock Object Framework?
Certainly not. Sometimes, writing mocks by hand can be quite tedious. But for simple things, it's not bad at all. Applying the principle of Last Responsible Moment to mocking frameworks, you should only switch from hand-written mocks to a framework when you've proven to yourself that hand-writing mocks is more trouble than it's worth.
If you're just getting starting with mocking, jumping straight into a framework is going to at least double your learning curve (can you double a curve?). Mocking frameworks will make much more sense when you've spent a few projects writing mocks by hand.
Object Mocking is a way to create a "virtual" or mocked object from an interface, abstract class, or class with virtual methods. It allows you to sort of wrap one of these in your own definition for testing purposes. It is useful for making an object that is relied on for a certain code block your are testing.
A popular one that I like to use is called Moq, but there are many others like RhinoMock and numerous ones that I don't know about.
It allows you to test how one part of your project interacts with the rest, without building the entire thing and potentially missing a vital part.
EDIT: Great example from wikipedia: It allows you to test out code beforehand, like a car designer uses a crash test dummy to test the behavior of a car during an accident.
Another use is it will let you test against other parts of your system that aren't built yet. For example, if your class depends on some other class that is part of a feature that someone else is working on, you can just ask for a mostly complete interface, program to the interface and just mock the details as you expect them to work. Then, make sure your assumptions about the interface were correct (either while you are developing, or once the feature is complete).
Whether or not you a mocking framework is useful depends in part on the language of the code you're writing. With a static language, you need to put in extra effort in order to trick the compiler into accepting your mock objects as a replacement for the real thing. In a dynamically-typed language such as Python, Ruby or Javascript, you can generally just attach the methods onto arbitrary object or class and pass that as the parameter -- so a framework would add much less value.
2 recommended mocking frameworks for .net Unit testing are Typemock Isolator and Rhino Mock.
In the following link you can see an explanation from Typemock as to why you need a mocking framework for Unit Testing.
Inversion of Control (IoC) can be quite confusing when it is first encountered.
What is it?
Which problem does it solve?
When is it appropriate to use and when not?
The Inversion-of-Control (IoC) pattern, is about providing any kind of callback, which "implements" and/or controls reaction, instead of acting ourselves directly (in other words, inversion and/or redirecting control to the external handler/controller).
The Dependency-Injection (DI) pattern is a more specific version of IoC pattern, and is all about removing dependencies from your code.
Every DI implementation can be considered IoC, but one should not call it IoC, because implementing Dependency-Injection is harder than callback (Don't lower your product's worth by using the general term "IoC" instead).
For DI example, say your application has a text-editor component, and you want to provide spell checking. Your standard code would look something like this:
public class TextEditor {
private SpellChecker checker;
public TextEditor() {
this.checker = new SpellChecker();
}
}
What we've done here creates a dependency between the TextEditor and the SpellChecker.
In an IoC scenario we would instead do something like this:
public class TextEditor {
private IocSpellChecker checker;
public TextEditor(IocSpellChecker checker) {
this.checker = checker;
}
}
In the first code example we are instantiating SpellChecker (this.checker = new SpellChecker();), which means the TextEditor class directly depends on the SpellChecker class.
In the second code example we are creating an abstraction by having the SpellChecker dependency class in TextEditor's constructor signature (not initializing dependency in class). This allows us to call the dependency then pass it to the TextEditor class like so:
SpellChecker sc = new SpellChecker(); // dependency
TextEditor textEditor = new TextEditor(sc);
Now the client creating the TextEditor class has control over which SpellChecker implementation to use because we're injecting the dependency into the TextEditor signature.
Note that just like IoC being the base of many other patterns, above sample is only one of many Dependency-Injection kinds, for example:
Constructor Injection.
Where an instance of IocSpellChecker would be passed to constructor, either automatically or similar to above manually.
Setter Injection.
Where an instance of IocSpellChecker would be passed through setter-method or public property.
Service-lookup and/or Service-locator
Where TextEditor would ask a known provider for a globally-used-instance (service) of IocSpellChecker type (and that maybe without storing said instance, and instead, asking the provider again and again).
Inversion of Control is what you get when your program callbacks, e.g. like a gui program.
For example, in an old school menu, you might have:
print "enter your name"
read name
print "enter your address"
read address
etc...
store in database
thereby controlling the flow of user interaction.
In a GUI program or somesuch, instead we say:
when the user types in field a, store it in NAME
when the user types in field b, store it in ADDRESS
when the user clicks the save button, call StoreInDatabase
So now control is inverted... instead of the computer accepting user input in a fixed order, the user controls the order in which the data is entered, and when the data is saved in the database.
Basically, anything with an event loop, callbacks, or execute triggers falls into this category.
What is Inversion of Control?
If you follow these simple two steps, you have done inversion of control:
Separate what-to-do part from when-to-do part.
Ensure that when part knows as little as possible about what part; and vice versa.
There are several techniques possible for each of these steps based on the technology/language you are using for your implementation.
--
The inversion part of the Inversion of Control (IoC) is the confusing thing; because inversion is the relative term. The best way to understand IoC is to forget about that word!
--
Examples
Event Handling. Event Handlers (what-to-do part) -- Raising Events (when-to-do part)
Dependency Injection. Code that constructs a dependency (what-to-do part) -- instantiating and injecting that dependency for the clients when needed, which is usually taken care of by the DI tools such as Dagger (when-to-do-part).
Interfaces. Component client (when-to-do part) -- Component Interface implementation (what-to-do part)
xUnit fixture. Setup and TearDown (what-to-do part) -- xUnit frameworks calls to Setup at the beginning and TearDown at the end (when-to-do part)
Template method design pattern. template method when-to-do part -- primitive subclass implementation what-to-do part
DLL container methods in COM. DllMain, DllCanUnload, etc (what-to-do part) -- COM/OS (when-to-do part)
Inversion of Controls is about separating concerns.
Without IoC: You have a laptop computer and you accidentally break the screen. And darn, you find the same model laptop screen is nowhere in the market. So you're stuck.
With IoC: You have a desktop computer and you accidentally break the screen. You find you can just grab almost any desktop monitor from the market, and it works well with your desktop.
Your desktop successfully implements IoC in this case. It accepts a variety type of monitors, while the laptop does not, it needs a specific screen to get fixed.
Inversion of Control, (or IoC), is about getting freedom (You get married, you lost freedom and you are being controlled. You divorced, you have just implemented Inversion of Control. That's what we called, "decoupled". Good computer system discourages some very close relationship.) more flexibility (The kitchen in your office only serves clean tap water, that is your only choice when you want to drink. Your boss implemented Inversion of Control by setting up a new coffee machine. Now you get the flexibility of choosing either tap water or coffee.) and less dependency (Your partner has a job, you don't have a job, you financially depend on your partner, so you are controlled. You find a job, you have implemented Inversion of Control. Good computer system encourages in-dependency.)
When you use a desktop computer, you have slaved (or say, controlled). You have to sit before a screen and look at it. Using the keyboard to type and using the mouse to navigate. And a badly written software can slave you even more. If you replace your desktop with a laptop, then you somewhat inverted control. You can easily take it and move around. So now you can control where you are with your computer, instead of your computer controlling it.
By implementing Inversion of Control, a software/object consumer gets more controls/options over the software/objects, instead of being controlled or having fewer options.
With the above ideas in mind. We still miss a key part of IoC. In the scenario of IoC, the software/object consumer is a sophisticated framework. That means the code you created is not called by yourself. Now let's explain why this way works better for a web application.
Suppose your code is a group of workers. They need to build a car. These workers need a place and tools (a software framework) to build the car. A traditional software framework will be like a garage with many tools. So the workers need to make a plan themselves and use the tools to build the car. Building a car is not an easy business, it will be really hard for the workers to plan and cooperate properly. A modern software framework will be like a modern car factory with all the facilities and managers in place. The workers do not have to make any plan, the managers (part of the framework, they are the smartest people and made the most sophisticated plan) will help coordinate so that the workers know when to do their job (framework calls your code). The workers just need to be flexible enough to use any tools the managers give to them (by using Dependency Injection).
Although the workers give the control of managing the project on the top level to the managers (the framework). But it is good to have some professionals help out. This is the concept of IoC truly come from.
Modern Web applications with an MVC architecture depends on the framework to do URL Routing and put Controllers in place for the framework to call.
Dependency Injection and Inversion of Control are related. Dependency Injection is at the micro level and Inversion of Control is at the macro level. You have to eat every bite (implement DI) in order to finish a meal (implement IoC).
Before using Inversion of Control you should be well aware of the fact that it has its pros and cons and you should know why you use it if you do so.
Pros:
Your code gets decoupled so you can easily exchange implementations of an interface with alternative implementations
It is a strong motivator for coding against interfaces instead of implementations
It's very easy to write unit tests for your code because it depends on nothing else than the objects it accepts in its constructor/setters and you can easily initialize them with the right objects in isolation.
Cons:
IoC not only inverts the control flow in your program, it also clouds it considerably. This means you can no longer just read your code and jump from one place to another because the connections that would normally be in your code are not in the code anymore. Instead it is in XML configuration files or annotations and in the code of your IoC container that interprets these metadata.
There arises a new class of bugs where you get your XML config or your annotations wrong and you can spend a lot of time finding out why your IoC container injects a null reference into one of your objects under certain conditions.
Personally I see the strong points of IoC and I really like them but I tend to avoid IoC whenever possible because it turns your software into a collection of classes that no longer constitute a "real" program but just something that needs to be put together by XML configuration or annotation metadata and would fall (and falls) apart without it.
Wikipedia Article. To me, inversion of control is turning your sequentially written code and turning it into an delegation structure. Instead of your program explicitly controlling everything, your program sets up a class or library with certain functions to be called when certain things happen.
It solves code duplication. For example, in the old days you would manually write your own event loop, polling the system libraries for new events. Nowadays, most modern APIs you simply tell the system libraries what events you're interested in, and it will let you know when they happen.
Inversion of control is a practical way to reduce code duplication, and if you find yourself copying an entire method and only changing a small piece of the code, you can consider tackling it with inversion of control. Inversion of control is made easy in many languages through the concept of delegates, interfaces, or even raw function pointers.
It is not appropriate to use in all cases, because the flow of a program can be harder to follow when written this way. It's a useful way to design methods when writing a library that will be reused, but it should be used sparingly in the core of your own program unless it really solves a code duplication problem.
Suppose you are an object. And you go to a restaurant:
Without IoC: you ask for "apple", and you are always served apple when you ask more.
With IoC: You can ask for "fruit". You can get different fruits each time you get served. for example, apple, orange, or water melon.
So, obviously, IoC is preferred when you like the varieties.
Answering only the first part.
What is it?
Inversion of Control (IoC) means to create instances of dependencies first and latter instance of a class (optionally injecting them through constructor), instead of creating an instance of the class first and then the class instance creating instances of dependencies.
Thus, inversion of control inverts the flow of control of the program. Instead of the callee controlling the flow of control (while creating dependencies), the caller controls the flow of control of the program.
But I think you have to be very careful with it. If you will overuse this pattern, you will make very complicated design and even more complicated code.
Like in this example with TextEditor: if you have only one SpellChecker maybe it is not really necessary to use IoC ? Unless you need to write unit tests or something ...
Anyway: be reasonable. Design pattern are good practices but not Bible to be preached. Do not stick it everywhere.
IoC / DI to me is pushing out dependencies to the calling objects. Super simple.
The non-techy answer is being able to swap out an engine in a car right before you turn it on. If everything hooks up right (the interface), you are good.
Inversion of control is a pattern used for decoupling components and layers in the system. The pattern is implemented through injecting dependencies into a component when it is constructed. These dependences are usually provided as interfaces for further decoupling and to support testability. IoC / DI containers such as Castle Windsor, Unity are tools (libraries) which can be used for providing IoC. These tools provide extended features above and beyond simple dependency management, including lifetime, AOP / Interception, policy, etc.
a. Alleviates a component from being responsible for managing it's dependencies.
b. Provides the ability to swap dependency implementations in different environments.
c. Allows a component be tested through mocking of dependencies.
d. Provides a mechanism for sharing resources throughout an application.
a. Critical when doing test-driven development. Without IoC it can be difficult to test, because the components under test are highly coupled to the rest of the system.
b. Critical when developing modular systems. A modular system is a system whose components can be replaced without requiring recompilation.
c. Critical if there are many cross-cutting concerns which need to addressed, partilarly in an enterprise application.
Let's say that we have a meeting in a hotel.
We have invited many people, so we have left out many jugs of water and many plastic cups.
When somebody wants to drink, he/she fills a cup, drinks the water and throws the cup on the floor.
After an hour or so we have a floor covered with plastic cups and water.
Let's try that after inverting the control:
Imagine the same meeting in the same place, but instead of plastic cups we now have a waiter with just one glass cup (Singleton)
When somebody wants to drink, the waiter gets one for them. They drink it and return it to the waiter.
Leaving aside the question of the hygiene, the use of a waiter (process control) is much more effective and economic.
And this is exactly what Spring (another IoC container, for example: Guice) does. Instead of letting the application create what it needs using the new keyword (i.e. taking a plastic cup), Spring IoC offers the application the same cup/ instance (singleton) of the needed object (glass of water).
Think of yourself as an organizer of such a meeting:
Example:-
public class MeetingMember {
private GlassOfWater glassOfWater;
...
public void setGlassOfWater(GlassOfWater glassOfWater){
this.glassOfWater = glassOfWater;
}
//your glassOfWater object initialized and ready to use...
//spring IoC called setGlassOfWater method itself in order to
//offer to meetingMember glassOfWater instance
}
Useful links:-
http://adfjsf.blogspot.in/2008/05/inversion-of-control.html
http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html
http://www.shawn-barrett.com/blog/post/Tip-of-the-day-e28093-Inversion-Of-Control.aspx
I shall write down my simple understanding of this two terms:
For quick understanding just read examples*
Dependency Injection(DI):
Dependency injection generally means passing an object on which method depends, as a parameter to a method, rather than having the method create the dependent object. What it means in practice is that the method does not depends directly on a particular implementation; any implementation that meets the requirements can be passed as a parameter.
With this objects tell thier dependencies.
And spring makes it available. This leads to loosely coupled application development.
Quick Example:EMPLOYEE OBJECT WHEN CREATED,
IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY CREATE ADDRESS OBJECT
(if address is defines as dependency by Employee object)
Inversion of Control(IoC) Container:
This is common characteristic of frameworks,
IOC manages java objects – from instantiation to destruction through its BeanFactory. -Java components that are instantiated by the IoC container are called beans, and the IoC container manages a bean's scope, lifecycle events, and any AOP features for which it has been configured and coded.
QUICK EXAMPLE:Inversion of Control is about getting freedom, more flexibility, and less dependency. When you are using a desktop computer, you are slaved (or say, controlled). You have to sit before a screen and look at it. Using keyboard to type and using mouse to navigate. And a bad written software can slave you even more. If you replaced your desktop with a laptop, then you somewhat inverted control. You can easily take it and move around. So now you can control where you are with your computer, instead of computer controlling it.
By implementing Inversion of Control, a software/object consumer get more controls/options over the software/objects, instead of being controlled or having less options.
Inversion of control as a design guideline serves the following purposes:
There is a decoupling of the execution of a certain task from implementation.
Every module can focus on what it is designed for.
Modules make no assumptions about what other systems do but rely on their contracts.
Replacing modules has no side effect on other modules I will keep things abstract here, You can visit following links for detail understanding of the topic.
A good read with example
Detailed explanation
I found a very clear example here which explains how the 'control is inverted'.
Classic code (without Dependency injection)
Here is how a code not using DI will roughly work:
Application needs Foo (e.g. a controller), so:
Application creates Foo
Application calls Foo
Foo needs Bar (e.g. a service), so:
Foo creates Bar
Foo calls Bar
Bar needs Bim (a service, a repository, …), so:
Bar creates Bim
Bar does something
Using dependency injection
Here is how a code using DI will roughly work:
Application needs Foo, which needs Bar, which needs Bim, so:
Application creates Bim
Application creates Bar and gives it Bim
Application creates Foo and gives it Bar
Application calls Foo
Foo calls Bar
Bar does something
The control of the dependencies is inverted from one being called to the one calling.
What problems does it solve?
Dependency injection makes it easy to swap with the different implementation of the injected classes. While unit testing you can inject a dummy implementation, which makes the testing a lot easier.
Ex: Suppose your application stores the user uploaded file in the Google Drive, with DI your controller code may look like this:
class SomeController
{
private $storage;
function __construct(StorageServiceInterface $storage)
{
$this->storage = $storage;
}
public function myFunction ()
{
return $this->storage->getFile($fileName);
}
}
class GoogleDriveService implements StorageServiceInterface
{
public function authenticate($user) {}
public function putFile($file) {}
public function getFile($file) {}
}
When your requirements change say, instead of GoogleDrive you are asked to use the Dropbox. You only need to write a dropbox implementation for the StorageServiceInterface. You don't have make any changes in the controller as long as Dropbox implementation adheres to the StorageServiceInterface.
While testing you can create the mock for the StorageServiceInterface with the dummy implementation where all the methods return null(or any predefined value as per your testing requirement).
Instead if you had the controller class to construct the storage object with the new keyword like this:
class SomeController
{
private $storage;
function __construct()
{
$this->storage = new GoogleDriveService();
}
public function myFunction ()
{
return $this->storage->getFile($fileName);
}
}
When you want to change with the Dropbox implementation you have to replace all the lines where new GoogleDriveService object is constructed and use the DropboxService. Besides when testing the SomeController class the constructor always expects the GoogleDriveService class and the actual methods of this class are triggered.
When is it appropriate and when not?
In my opinion you use DI when you think there are (or there can be) alternative implementations of a class.
I agree with NilObject, but I'd like to add to this:
if you find yourself copying an entire method and only changing a small piece of the code, you can consider tackling it with inversion of control
If you find yourself copying and pasting code around, you're almost always doing something wrong. Codified as the design principle Once and Only Once.
For example, task#1 is to create object.
Without IOC concept, task#1 is supposed to be done by Programmer.But With IOC concept, task#1 would be done by container.
In short Control gets inverted from Programmer to container. So, it is called as inversion of control.
I found one good example here.
It seems that the most confusing thing about "IoC" the acronym and the name for which it stands is that it's too glamorous of a name - almost a noise name.
Do we really need a name by which to describe the difference between procedural and event driven programming? OK, if we need to, but do we need to pick a brand new "bigger than life" name that confuses more than it solves?
Inversion of control is when you go to the grocery store and your wife gives you the list of products to buy.
In programming terms, she passed a callback function getProductList() to the function you are executing - doShopping().
It allows user of the function to define some parts of it, making it more flexible.
I understand that the answer has already been given here. But I still think, some basics about the inversion of control have to be discussed here in length for future readers.
Inversion of Control (IoC) has been built on a very simple principle called Hollywood Principle. And it says that,
Don't call us, we'll call you
What it means is that don't go to the Hollywood to fulfill your dream rather if you are worthy then Hollywood will find you and make your dream comes true. Pretty much inverted, huh?
Now when we discuss about the principle of IoC, we use to forget about the Hollywood. For IoC, there has to be three element, a Hollywood, you and a task like to fulfill your dream.
In our programming world, Hollywood represent a generic framework (may be written by you or someone else), you represent the user code you wrote and the task represent the thing you want to accomplish with your code. Now you don't ever go to trigger your task by yourself, not in IoC! Rather you have designed everything in such that your framework will trigger your task for you. Thus you have built a reusable framework which can make someone a hero or another one a villain. But that framework is always in charge, it knows when to pick someone and that someone only knows what it wants to be.
A real life example would be given here. Suppose, you want to develop a web application. So, you create a framework which will handle all the common things a web application should handle like handling http request, creating application menu, serving pages, managing cookies, triggering events etc.
And then you leave some hooks in your framework where you can put further codes to generate custom menu, pages, cookies or logging some user events etc. On every browser request, your framework will run and executes your custom codes if hooked then serve it back to the browser.
So, the idea is pretty much simple. Rather than creating a user application which will control everything, first you create a reusable framework which will control everything then write your custom codes and hook it to the framework to execute those in time.
Laravel and EJB are examples of such a frameworks.
Reference:
https://martinfowler.com/bliki/InversionOfControl.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_of_control
Inversion of Control is a generic principle, while Dependency Injection realises this principle as a design pattern for object graph construction (i.e. configuration controls how the objects are referencing each other, rather than the object itself controlling how to get the reference to another object).
Looking at Inversion of Control as a design pattern, we need to look at what we are inverting. Dependency Injection inverts control of constructing a graph of objects. If told in layman's term, inversion of control implies change in flow of control in the program. Eg. In traditional standalone app, we have main method, from where the control gets passed to other third party libraries(in case, we have used third party library's function), but through inversion of control control gets transferred from third party library code to our code, as we are taking the service of third party library. But there are other aspects that need to be inverted within a program - e.g. invocation of methods and threads to execute the code.
For those interested in more depth on Inversion of Control a paper has been published outlining a more complete picture of Inversion of Control as a design pattern (OfficeFloor: using office patterns to improve software design http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2739011.2739013 with a free copy available to download from http://www.officefloor.net/about.html).
What is identified is the following relationship:
Inversion of Control (for methods) = Dependency (state) Injection + Continuation Injection + Thread Injection
Summary of above relationship for Inversion of Control available - http://dzone.com/articles/inversion-of-coupling-control
IoC is about inverting the relationship between your code and third-party code (library/framework):
In normal s/w development, you write the main() method and call "library" methods. You are in control :)
In IoC the "framework" controls main() and calls your methods. The Framework is in control :(
DI (Dependency Injection) is about how the control flows in the application. Traditional desktop application had control flow from your application(main() method) to other library method calls, but with DI control flow is inverted that's framework takes care of starting your app, initializing it and invoking your methods whenever required.
In the end you always win :)
I like this explanation: http://joelabrahamsson.com/inversion-of-control-an-introduction-with-examples-in-net/
It start simple and shows code examples as well.
The consumer, X, needs the consumed class, Y, to accomplish something. That’s all good and natural, but does X really need to know that it uses Y?
Isn’t it enough that X knows that it uses something that has the behavior, the methods, properties etc, of Y without knowing who actually implements the behavior?
By extracting an abstract definition of the behavior used by X in Y, illustrated as I below, and letting the consumer X use an instance of that instead of Y it can continue to do what it does without having to know the specifics about Y.
In the illustration above Y implements I and X uses an instance of I. While it’s quite possible that X still uses Y what’s interesting is that X doesn’t know that. It just knows that it uses something that implements I.
Read article for further info and description of benefits such as:
X is not dependent on Y anymore
More flexible, implementation can be decided in runtime
Isolation of code unit, easier testing
...
A very simple written explanation can be found here
http://binstock.blogspot.in/2008/01/excellent-explanation-of-dependency.html
It says -
"Any nontrivial application is made up of two or more classes that
collaborate with each other to perform some business logic.
Traditionally, each object is responsible for obtaining its own
references to the objects it collaborates with (its dependencies).
When applying DI, the objects are given their dependencies at creation
time by some external entity that coordinates each object in the
system. In other words, dependencies are injected into objects."
Programming speaking
IoC in easy terms: It's the use of Interface as a way of specific something (such a field or a parameter) as a wildcard that can be used by some classes. It allows the re-usability of the code.
For example, let's say that we have two classes : Dog and Cat. Both shares the same qualities/states: age, size, weight. So instead of creating a class of service called DogService and CatService, I can create a single one called AnimalService that allows to use Dog and Cat only if they use the interface IAnimal.
However, pragmatically speaking, it has some backwards.
a) Most of the developers don't know how to use it. For example, I can create a class called Customer and I can create automatically (using the tools of the IDE) an interface called ICustomer. So, it's not rare to find a folder filled with classes and interfaces, no matter if the interfaces will be reused or not. It's called BLOATED. Some people could argue that "may be in the future we could use it". :-|
b) It has some limitings. For example, let's talk about the case of Dog and Cat and I want to add a new service (functionality) only for dogs. Let's say that I want to calculate the number of days that I need to train a dog (trainDays()), for cat it's useless, cats can't be trained (I'm joking).
b.1) If I add trainDays() to the Service AnimalService then it also works with cats and it's not valid at all.
b.2) I can add a condition in trainDays() where it evaluates which class is used. But it will break completely the IoC.
b.3) I can create a new class of service called DogService just for the new functionality. But, it will increase the maintainability of the code because we will have two classes of service (with similar functionality) for Dog and it's bad.
Inversion of control is about transferring control from library to the client. It makes more sense when we talk about a client that injects (passes) a function value (lambda expression) into a higher order function (library function) that controls (changes) the behavior of the library function.
So, a simple implementation (with huge implications) of this pattern is a higher order library function (which accepts another function as an argument). The library function transfers control over its behavior by giving the client the ability to supply the "control" function as an argument.
For example, library functions like "map", "flatMap" are IoC implementations.
Of course, a limited IoC version is, for example, a boolean function parameter. A client may control the library function by switching the boolean argument.
A client or framework that injects library dependencies (which carry behavior) into libraries may also be considered IoC
I've read a lot of answers for this but if someone is still confused and needs a plus ultra "laymans term" to explain IoC here is my take:
Imagine a parent and child talking to each other.
Without IoC:
*Parent: You can only speak when I ask you questions and you can only act when I give you permission.
Parent: This means, you can't ask me if you can eat, play, go to the bathroom or even sleep if I don't ask you.
Parent: Do you want to eat?
Child: No.
Parent: Okay, I'll be back. Wait for me.
Child: (Wants to play but since there's no question from the parent, the child can't do anything).
After 1 hour...
Parent: I'm back. Do you want to play?
Child: Yes.
Parent: Permission granted.
Child: (finally is able to play).
This simple scenario explains the control is centered to the parent. The child's freedom is restricted and highly depends on the parent's question. The child can ONLY speak when asked to speak, and can ONLY act when granted permission.
With IoC:
The child has now the ability to ask questions and the parent can respond with answers and permissions. Simply means the control is inverted!
The child is now free to ask questions anytime and though there is still dependency with the parent regarding permissions, he is not dependent in the means of speaking/asking questions.
In a technological way of explaining, this is very similar to console/shell/cmd vs GUI interaction. (Which is answer of Mark Harrison above no.2 top answer).
In console, you are dependent on the what is being asked/displayed to you and you can't jump to other menus and features without answering it's question first; following a strict sequential flow. (programmatically this is like a method/function loop).
However with GUI, the menus and features are laid out and the user can select whatever it needs thus having more control and being less restricted. (programmatically, menus have callback when selected and an action takes place).
Since already there are many answers for the question but none of them shows the breakdown of Inversion Control term I see an opportunity to give a more concise and useful answer.
Inversion of Control is a pattern that implements the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP). DIP states the following: 1. High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions (e.g. interfaces). 2. Abstractions should not depend on details. Details (concrete implementations) should depend on abstractions.
There are three types of Inversion of Control:
Interface Inversion
Providers shouldn’t define an interface. Instead, the consumer should define the interface and providers must implement it. Interface Inversion allows eliminating the necessity to modify the consumer each time when a new provider added.
Flow Inversion
Changes control of the flow. For example, you have a console application where you asked to enter many parameters and after each entered parameter you are forced to press Enter. You can apply Flow Inversion here and implement a desktop application where the user can choose the sequence of parameters’ entering, the user can edit parameters, and at the final step, the user needs to press Enter only once.
Creation Inversion
It can be implemented by the following patterns: Factory Pattern, Service Locator, and Dependency Injection. Creation Inversion helps to eliminate dependencies between types moving the process of dependency objects creation outside of the type that uses these dependency objects. Why dependencies are bad? Here are a couple of examples: direct creation of a new object in your code makes testing harder; it is impossible to change references in assemblies without recompilation (OCP principle violation); you can’t easily replace a desktop-UI by a web-UI.
Creating an object within class is called tight coupling, Spring removes this dependency by following a design pattern(DI/IOC). In which object of class in passed in constructor rather than creating in class. More over we give super class reference variable in constructor to define more general structure.
Using IoC you are not new'ing up your objects. Your IoC container will do that and manage the lifetime of them.
It solves the problem of having to manually change every instantiation of one type of object to another.
It is appropriate when you have functionality that may change in the future or that may be different depending on the environment or configuration used in.