From: Christian Neukirchen Date: 2005-09-23T01:18:46+09:00 Subject: Re: [ANN] Dissident 0.1, a Ruby dependency injection container Jacob Fugal writes: > On 9/22/05, Christian Neukirchen wrote: >> Piergiuliano Bossi writes: >> > Ehm, to be precise I'm not advocating the use of an IoC container; on >> > the other side, the principle of dependency injection is an important >> > tool to put in your box. >> >> Just curious, but you could explain why you do not advocate using IoC >> containers? > > In my understanding, Giuliano wasn't advocating against using IoC > frameworks[1] (or more specifically, DI frameworks[2]). He simply > disclaimed himself from advocating a framework or frameworks in > general. He advocates DI as a principle/tool but leaves it at that. I must have misinterpreted him then. > Of course, he may indeed have been advocating against using DI > frameworks, in which case I'll let him go ahead and defend his > position. :) > > Jacob Fugal > > [1] I replaced discussion of "containers" with "frameworks". A > container is an element of one approach to dependency injection. It's > not a necessary element, and even when it is used it may be named > differently (e.g. Coplands "registry"). Also, ad-hoc DI without a > framework may use a form of container. What's being discussed -- ie. > entities such as Copland, Needle, Dissident, Matz-DI and even Java's > PicoContainer (despite the word "Container" in the name) -- are > frameworks. Yes, you are right. However, I try to avoid calling Dissident a "framework", because "framework" has a bit of a bad taste for some people. You could call it a "dependency injection library" if container is not precise enough. > [2] The confusion about Inversion of Control (IoC) versus Dependency > Injection (DI) is significant. I'd suggest avoiding the term IoC in > favor of DI unless you are specifically talking about an IoC principle > which is independent of DI. Yes, I was just picking up the term Piergiuliano used. -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org