Comments on: Dependency Injection and Inversion of Control are not rocket surgery

By: Fourpxdirectory

Fourpxdirectory — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:23:04 +0000

It allows for an increased level of testability as well as lower coupling between components of an application.

By: cheap leon russell tickets

cheap leon russell tickets — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:54:14 +0000

It sounds like you’re creating problems yourself by trying to solve this issue instead of looking at why their is a problem in the first place

By: Chicken nesting boxes

Chicken nesting boxes — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:45:55 +0000

Wim: Yes, I struggled a bit to get a good example of the IOC. Finally just went with the injection of the interface. I guess the event delegate handlers have been another good example, one that could have lit the light bulb for many people. ‘Oh, I’m already using the IOC and I do not even know it. This was an interesting read, however I am not sure I understand the main themes. Regardless it was a fun read!

By: Motorcycle foot pegs

Motorcycle foot pegs — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 16:34:29 +0000

Dependency injection is really something that allows the inversion of control. It need not be the case. In the example reader IOC is not clear at all. In my opinion, the IOC is more about having a container that is actually a fairly granular control of the methods defined in the interface definition of dependency, but the package is wrapped its own logic, registration and implementation process of the methods interface. Very useful article. I love twitter.

By: Garry Pilkington

Garry Pilkington — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:54:32 +0000

Great example. I have bookmarked this and will use it to show my colleagues just how simple DI and IOC are.

By: Tweets that mention Dependency Injection and Inversion of Control are not rocket surgery | Lazycoder -- Topsy.com

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:57:58 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Scott Koon, Ryan Farley, Jungchan Hsieh, Patrick Veverka, Doug Philips and others. Doug Philips said: RT @lazycoder: [posted]Dependency Injection and Inversion of Control are not rocket surgery http://bit.ly/1AjGZN [...]

By: Dew Drop – November 4, 2009 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew

Dew Drop – November 4, 2009 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:24:01 +0000

[...] Dependency Injection and Inversion of Control are not rocket surgery (Scott Koon) [...]

By: Reflective Perspective - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #469

Reflective Perspective - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #469 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:28:08 +0000

[...] Dependency Injection and Inversion of Control are not rocket surgery – Scott Koon shows how the techniques of Dependency Injection and Inversion of control are not as complicated as may developers believe, looking at definitions of the techniques and showing simple examples of both. [...]

By: Damian Brady

Damian Brady — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:51:38 +0000

That’s probably the best description of these concepts I’ve seen.

I have to be honest, I was fairly confused by DI and IoC the first time I saw them. I wish I’d seen an article like this right at the start – it would have made things a lot easier.

Thanks, I’ll be passing this link on.

By: Rob G

Rob G — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:38:07 +0000

In a word – “Quality!”

It’s posts like these that are driving home everyday something that we already know: these concepts are not tough to understand and use, it is the incessant resistance to change causing problems.

The more of these great 1-pagers we have in evidence, the more I get to point out to those whining about “if it ain’t broke…blah” – that simple changes like this to future code at the very least will pay back dividends that they cannot yet fathom.

That’s the real problem – the not being able to “fathom the benefits” part.

Great post, keep ‘em coming
Rob G