I don't buy the cheaper maintence costs argument, the 5 projects that I am supporting all use spring for DI. I spend half of my time trying to figure out how the damn thing is configured.
Although a code based injector without xml config files at least alows you to debug the code and see what is missing. I like DI, but it sure doesn't save time. Davy "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." I feel much the same way about xml -----Original Message----- From: mike smith <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:46:45 To: ozDotNet<[email protected]> Reply-To: ozDotNet <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Other developers don't like dependency injection On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Nathan Schultz <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd probably sell it differently. > > Instead of saying you "don't know" where the objects come from, say that > objects come from a centrally configured location (since in practice the > objects are usually defined in configuration, or in bootstrap code). > > And sell cheaper maintenance costs (modular design, easy to refactor, easy > to replace components, easier to extend, fewer system wide bugs, helps with > a cleaner implementation, less spaghetti code, etc). > > To get it past some of the "old hats" here I temporarily changed > terminology. Dependency Injection (let alone IoC) would draw blank looks, > but say "plug-in system", and they've all rolled one before and are > comfortable with the concept. > > > Also, it sounds like those baddies, DLL Injection & SQL Injection. Make it sound different, and you could get a better reaction. -- Meski http://courteous.ly/aAOZcv "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
