What is Inversion of Control?

T

Top-Master

The Inversion-of-Control (IoC) pattern, is about providing any kind of callback (which controls reaction), instead of acting ourself directly (in other words, inversion and/or redirecting control to 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 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.

Good clear example. However, suppose rather than requiring the ISpellChecker interface be passed to the object's constructor, we exposed it as a settable property (or SetSpellChecker method). Would this still constitute IoC?

chainguy1337 - yes it would. Using setters like that is called setter injection as opposed to constructor injection (both dependency injection techniques). IoC is a fairly generic pattern, but dependency injection acheives IoC

I agree with @Rogeria. this doesn't explain why it is called the IoC and I am surprised by the number of up votes ;-)

I side with @Rogerio and @Pangea. This may be a good example for constructor injection but not a good answer to the original question. IoC, as defined by Fowler, can be realised without using injection of any kind, e.g. by using a service locator or even simple inheritance.

The example you gave is not of IOC, it is Dependency Injection example.

H

Hearen

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.

dont mark this guy down. technically he is correct martinfowler.com/bliki/InversionOfControl.html IoC is a very general principal. Flow of control is "inverted" by dependency injection because you have effectively delegated dependancies to some external system (e.g. IoC container)

Agreed with Schneider's comment. 5 downvotes? The mind boggles, since this is the only answer that's really correct. Note the opening: 'like a gui program.' Dependency injection is only the most commonly-seen realization of IoC.

Indeed, this is one of the few correct anwsers! Guys, IoC is not fundamentally about dependencies. Not at all.

+1 - This is a good description (with example) of the following statement by Martin Fowler - "Early user interfaces were controlled by the application program. You would have a sequence of commands like "Enter name", "enter address"; your program would drive the prompts and pick up a response to each one. With graphical (or even screen based) UIs the UI framework would contain this main loop and your program instead provided event handlers for the various fields on the screen. The main control of the program was inverted, moved away from you to the framework."

I now get it why it is sometimes facetiously referred to as the "Hollywood Principle: Don't call us, we'll call you"