Dependency injection (DI) is a well known and fashionable pattern. Most of engineers know its advantages, like:

  • Making isolation in unit testing possible/easy
  • Explicitly defining dependencies of a class
  • Facilitating good design (single responsibility principle (SRP) for example)
  • Enabling switching implementations quickly (DbLogger instead of ConsoleLogger for example)

I reckon there's industry wide consensus that DI is a good, useful pattern. There's not too much criticism at the moment. Disadvantages which are mentioned in the community are usually minor. Some of them:

  • Increased number of classes
  • Creation of unnecessary interfaces

Currently we discuss architecture design with my colleague. He's quite conservative, but open minded. He likes to question things, which I consider good, because many people in IT just copy the newest trend, repeat the advantages and in general don't think too much - don't analyse too deep.

The things I'd like to ask are:

  • Should we use dependency injection when we have just one implementation?
  • Should we ban creating new objects except language/framework ones?
  • Is injecting a single implementation bad idea (let's say we have just one implementation so we don't want to create "empty" interface) if we don't plan to unit test a particular class?
  • 33
    Are you really asking about depenency injection as a pattern, or are you asking about using DI frameworks? These are really distinct things, you should clarify which part of problem you are interested in, or explicitly ask about both. – Frax May 29 '18 at 12:26
  • 10
    @Frax about pattern, not frameworks – Landeeyo May 29 '18 at 14:03
  • 10
    You're confusing dependency inversion with dependency injection. The former is a design principle. The latter is a technique (usually implemented with an existing tool) for constructing hierarchies of objects. – jpmc26 May 29 '18 at 14:16
  • 3
    I often write tests using the real database and no mock objects at all. Works really well in many cases. And then you don't need interfaces most of the time. If you have a UserService that class is just a holder for logic. It gets injected a database connection and tests run inside of a transaction that is rolled back. Many would call this bad practice but I found that this works extremely well. Don't need to contort your code just for testing and you get the bug finding power of integration tests. – usr May 30 '18 at 12:09
  • 3
    The DI is almost always good. The bad thing with it is a lot of people think they know DI but all they know is how to use some weird framework without even being sure of what they are doing. DI nowadays suffers a lot from Cargo Cult Programming. – T. Sar Jun 1 '18 at 13:50

First, I would like to separate the design approach from the concept of frameworks. Dependency injection at its simplest and most fundamental level is simply:

A parent object provides all the dependencies required to the child object.

That's it. Note, that nothing in that requires interfaces, frameworks, any style of injection, etc. To be fair I first learned about this pattern 20 years ago. It is not new.

Due to more than 2 people having confusion over the term parent and child, in the context of dependency injection:

  • The parent is the object that instantiates and configures the child object it uses
  • The child is the component that is designed to be passively instantiated. I.e. it is designed to use whatever dependencies are provided by the parent, and does not instantiate it's own dependencies.

Dependency injection is a pattern for object composition.

Why interfaces?

Interfaces are a contract. They exist to limit how tightly coupled two objects can be. Not every dependency needs an interface, but they help with writing modular code.

When you add in the concept of unit testing, you may have two conceptual implementations for any given interface: the real object you want to use in your application, and the mocked or stubbed object you use for testing code that depends on the object. That alone can be justification enough for the interface.

Why frameworks?

Essentially initializing and providing dependencies to child objects can be daunting when there are a large number of them. Frameworks provide the following benefits:

  • Autowiring dependencies to components
  • Configuring the components with settings of some sort
  • Automating the boiler plate code so you don't have to see it written in multiple locations.

They also have the following disadvantages:

  • The parent object is a "container", and not anything in your code
  • It makes testing more complicated if you can't provide the dependencies directly in your test code
  • It can slow down initialization as it resolves all the dependencies using reflection and many other tricks
  • Runtime debugging can be more difficult, particularly if the container injects a proxy between the interface and the actual component that implements the interface (aspect oriented programming built in to Spring comes to mind). The container is a black box, and they aren't always built with any concept of facilitating the debugging process.

All that said, there are trade-offs. For small projects where there aren't a lot of moving parts, and there's little reason to use a DI framework. However, for more complicated projects where there are certain components already made for you, the framework can be justified.

What about [random article on the Internet]?

What about it? Many times people can get overzealous and add a bunch of restrictions and berate you if you aren't doing things the "one true way". There isn't one true way. See if you can extract anything useful from the article and ignore the stuff you don't agree with.

In short, think for yourself and try things out.

Working with "old heads"

Learn as much as you can. What you will find with a lot of developers that are working into their 70s is that they have learned not to be dogmatic about a lot of things. They have methods that they have worked with for decades that produce correct results.

I've had the privilege of working with a few of these, and they can provide some brutally honest feedback that makes a lot of sense. And where they see value, they add those tools to their repertoire.

  • 6
    @CarlLeth, I've worked with a number of frameworks from Spring to .net variants. Spring will let you inject implementations right into private fields using some reflection/classloader black magic. The only way to test components built like that is to use the container. Spring does have JUnit runners to configure the test environment, but it is more complicated than setting things up yourself. So yes, I just gave a practical example. – Berin Loritsch May 29 '18 at 21:00
  • 14
    There's one more disadvantage that I find to be a hurdle with DI through frameworks when I'm wearing my troubleshooter/maintainer hat: the spooky action at a distance they provide makes offline debugging harder. In the worst case, I have to run the code to see how dependencies are initialized and passed in. You mention this in the context of "testing", but it's actually much worse if you're just starting off looking at the source, never mind trying to get it to run (which may involve a ton of setup). Impeding my ability to tell what code does by just glancing at it is a Bad Thing. – Jeroen Mostert May 30 '18 at 11:17
  • 1
    Interfaces are not contracts, they are simply API's. Contracts imply semantics. This answer is using language specific terminology and Java/C# specific conventions. – Frank Hileman May 30 '18 at 19:54
  • 2
    @BerinLoritsch The main point of your own answer is that the DI principle != any given DI framework. The fact that Spring can do awful, unforgivable things is a disadvantage of Spring, not of DI frameworks in general. A good DI framework helps you follow the DI principle without nasty tricks. – Carl Leth May 31 '18 at 6:32
  • 1
    @CarlLeth: all DI frameworks are designed to remove or automate some things the programmer does not wish to spell out, they just vary in how. To the best of my knowledge, they all remove the ability to know how (or if) class A and B interact by just looking at A and B -- at the very least, you also need to look at the DI setup/configuration/conventions. Not a problem for the programmer (it's exactly what they want, actually), but a potential problem for a maintainer/debugger (possibly the same programmer, later). This is a trade off you make even if your DI framework is "perfect". – Jeroen Mostert May 31 '18 at 6:57

Dependency injection is, like most patterns, a solution to problems. So start by asking if you even have the problem in the first place. If not, then using the pattern most likely will make the code worse.

Consider first if you can reduce or eliminate dependencies. All other things being equal, we want each component in a system to have as few dependencies as possible. And if the dependencies are gone, the question of injecting or not becomes moot!

Consider a module which downloads some data from an external service, parses it, and performs some complex analysis, and writes to result to a file.

Now, if the dependency to the external service is hardcoded, then it will be really difficult to unit test the internal processing of this module. So you might decide to inject the external service and the file system as interface dependencies, which will allow you to inject mocks instead which in turn makes unit-testing the internal logic possible.

But a much better solution is simply to separate the analysis from the input/output. If the analysis is extracted to a module without side effects it will be much easier to test. Note that mocking is a code-smell - it is not always avoidable, but in general, it is better if you can test without relying on mocking. So by eliminating the dependencies, you avoid the problems which DI is supposed to alleviate. Note that such a design also adheres much better to SRP.

I want to emphasize that DI does not necessarily facilitate SRP or other good design principles like separation of concerns, high cohesion/low coupling and so on. It might just as well have the opposite effect. Consider a class A which uses another class B internally. B is only used by A and therefore fully encapsulated and can be considered an implementation detail. If you change this to inject B into the constructor of A, then you have exposed this implementation detail and now knowledge about this dependency and about how to initialize B, the lifetime of B and so on have to exist some other place in the system separately from A. So you have an overall worse architecture with leaking concerns.

On the other hand there are some cases where DI really is useful. For example for global services with side effects like a logger.

The problem is when patterns and architectures become goals in themselves rather than tools. Just asking "Should we use DI?" is kind of putting the cart before the horse. You should ask: "Do we have a problem?" and "What is the best solution for this problem?"

A part of your question boils down to: "Should we create superfluous interfaces to satisfy the demands of the pattern?" You probably already realize the answer to this - absolutely not! Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you something - most likely expensive consulting hours. An interface only has value if it represents an abstraction. An interface which just mimics the surface of a single class is called a "header interface" and this is a known antipattern.

  • 15
    I couldn't agree more! Also note that mocking things for the sake of it means that we're not actually testing the real implementations. If A uses B in production, but has only been tested against MockB, our tests don't tell us if it will work in production. When pure (no side-effect) components of a domain model are injecting and mocking each other, the result is a huge waste of everyone's time, a bloated and fragile codebase, and low confidence in the resulting system. Mock at the system's boundaries, not between arbitrary pieces of the same system. – Warbo May 29 '18 at 19:54
  • 17
    @CarlLeth Why do you think DI makes code "testable and maintainable", and code without it less? JacquesB is right that side effects are the thing which harms testability/maintainability. If code has no side-effects, we don't care what/where/when/how it calls other code; we can keep it simple and direct. If code has side-effects we have to care. DI can pull side-effects out of functions and put it in parameters, making those functions more testable but the program more complex. Sometimes that's unavoidable (e.g. DB access). If code has no side effects, DI is just useless complexity. – Warbo May 29 '18 at 22:59
  • 13
    @CarlLeth: DI is one solution to the problem of making code testable in isolation if it has dependencies which forbid it. But it does not reduce overall complexity, nor does it make code more readable, which means it does not necessarily increas maintainability. However, if all of those dependencies can be eliminated by better separation of concerns, this perfectly "nullifies" the benefits of DI, because it nullfies the need for DI. This is often a better solution to making code more testable and maintainable at the same time. – Doc Brown May 30 '18 at 4:34
  • 5
    @Warbo This was the original and still probably the only valid use of mocking. Even at system boundaries, it is rarely needed. People really do waste much time creating and updating nearly worthless tests. – Frank Hileman May 30 '18 at 19:49
  • 6
    @CarlLeth: ok, now I see where the misunderstanding comes from. You are talking about dependency inversion. But, the question, this answer and my comments are about DI = depency injection. – Doc Brown May 31 '18 at 6:37

In my experience, there are a number of downsides to dependency injection.

First, using DI does not simplify automated testing as much as advertised. Unit testing a class with a mock implementation of an interface lets you validate how that class will interact with the interface. That is, it lets you unit test how the class under test uses the contract provided by the interface. However, this provides much greater assurance that input from the class under test into the interface is as expected. It provides rather poor assurance that the class under test responds as expected to output from the interface as that is almost universally mock output, which is itself subject to bugs, oversimplifications and so on. In short, it does NOT let you validate that the class will behave as expected with a real implementation of the interface.

Second, DI makes it much harder to navigate through code. When trying to navigate to the definition of classes used as input to functions, an interface can be anything from a minor annoyance (e.g. where there is a single implementation) to a major time sink (e.g. when an overly generic interface like IDisposable is used) when trying to find the actual implementation being used. This can turn a simple exercise like "I need to fix a null reference exception in the code that happens right after this logging statement is printed" into a day long effort.

Third, the use of DI and frameworks is a double-edged sword. It can greatly reduce the amount of boiler-plate code needed for common operations. However, this comes at the expense of needing detailed knowledge of the particular DI framework to understand how these common operations are actually wired together. Understanding how dependencies are loaded into the framework and adding a new dependency into the framework to inject can require reading a fair amount of background material and following some basic tutorials on the framework. This can turn some simple tasks into rather time consuming ones.

  • I would also add that the more you inject, the longer your startup times are going to become. Most DI frameworks create all injectable singleton instances at startup time, regardless of where they are used. – Rodney P. Barbati May 30 '18 at 3:06
  • 7
    If you would like to test a class with real implementation (not a mock), you can write functional tests - tests similar to unit tests, but not using mocks. – BЈовић May 30 '18 at 5:57
  • @RodneyP.Barbati I'd question "Most". Of the ones I've used, only Spring does this by default (it does it to try to flush injection errors out immediately), and you can opt out of it. HK2, Guava and Dagger all create instances at injection time, not application startup. – Logan Pickup May 30 '18 at 6:15
  • 2
    I think your second paragraph needs to be more nuanced: DI in itself doesn’t make it hard(er) to navigate through code. At its simplest, DI is simply a consequence of following SOLID. What increases complexity is the use of unnecessary indirection and DI frameworks. Other than that, this answer hits the nail on the head. – Konrad Rudolph May 30 '18 at 10:11
  • 4
    Dependency injection, outside of cases where it is truly needed, is also a warning sign that other superfluous code may be present in great abundance. Executives are often surprised to learn that developers add complexity for the sake of complexity. – Frank Hileman May 30 '18 at 19:43

I followed Mark Seemann's advice from "Dependency injection in .NET" - to surmise.

DI should be used when you have a 'volatile dependency', e.g. there's a reasonable chance it might change.

So if you think you might have more than one implementation in the future or the implementation might change, use DI. Otherwise new is fine.

  • 5
    Note he also gives different advice for OO and functional languages blog.ploeh.dk/2017/01/27/… – jk. May 29 '18 at 11:51
  • 1
    That's good point. If we create interfaces for every dependency by default then it's somehow against YAGNI. – Landeeyo May 29 '18 at 12:05
  • 4
    Can you provide a reference to "Dependency injection in .NET"? – Peter Mortensen May 29 '18 at 23:39
  • 1
    If you are unit testing, then it is highly likely that your dependency is volatile. – Jaquez May 30 '18 at 16:12
  • 10
    The good thing is, developers are always able to predict the future with perfect accuracy. – Frank Hileman May 30 '18 at 19:44

My biggest pet peeve about DI was already mentioned in a few answers in a passing way, but I'll expand on it a bit here. DI (as it is mostly done today, with containers etc.) really, REALLY hurts code readability. And code readability is arguably the reason behind most of today's programming innovations. As someone said - writing code is easy. Reading code is hard. But it's also extremely important, unless you're writing some kind of tiny write-once throwaway utility.

The problem with DI in this regard is that it's opaque. The container is a black box. Objects simply appear from somewhere and you have no idea - who constructed them and when? What was passed to the constructor? Who am I sharing this instance with? Who knows...

And when you work primarily with interfaces, all the "go to definition" features of your IDE go up in smoke. It's awfully difficult to trace out the flow of the program without running it and just stepping through to see just WHICH implementation of the interface was used in THIS particular spot. And occasionally there's some technical hurdle which prevents you from stepping through. And even if you can, if it involves going through the twisted bowels of the DI container, the whole affair quickly becomes an exercise in frustration.

To work efficiently with a piece of code that used DI, you must be familiar with it and already know what goes where.


Enabling switching implementations quickly (DbLogger instead of ConsoleLogger for example)

While DI in general is surely a good thing, I'd suggest not to use it blindly for everything. For example, I never inject loggers. One of advantages of DI is making the dependencies explicit and clear. There's no point in listing ILogger as dependency of nearly every class - it's just clutter. It's the responsibility of the logger to provide the flexibility you need. All my loggers are static final members, I may consider injecting a logger when I need a non-static one.

Increased number of classes

This is an disadvantage of the given DI framework or mocking framework, not of DI itself. In most places my classes depend on concrete classes, which means that there's zero boilerplate needed. Guice (a Java DI framework) binds by default a class to itself and I only need to override the binding in tests (or wire them manually instead).

Creation of unnecessary interfaces

I only create the interfaces when needed (which is rather rare). This means that sometimes, I have to replace all occurrences of a class by an interface, but the IDE can do this for me.

Should we use dependency injection when we have just one implementation?

Yes, but avoid any added boilerplate.

Should we ban creating new objects except language/framework ones?

No. There'll be many value (immutable) and data (mutable) classes, where the instances just get created and passed around and where there's no point in injecting them -- as they never get stored in another object (or only in other such objects).

For them, you may need to inject a factory instead, but most of the time it makes no sense (imagine e.g., @Value class NamedUrl {private final String name; private final URL url;}; you really don't need a factory here and there's nothing to inject).

Is injecting a single implementation bad idea (let's say we have just one implementation so we don't want to create "empty" interface) if we don't plan to unit test a particular class?

IMHO it's fine as long as it causes no code bloat. Do inject the dependency but do not create the interface (and no crazy config XML!) as you can do it later without any hassle.

Actually, in my current project, there are four classes (out of hundreds), which I decided to exclude from DI as they're simple classes used in too many places, including data objects.

Another disadvantage of most DI frameworks is the runtime overhead. This can be moved to compile time (for Java, there's Dagger, no idea about other languages).

Yet another disadvantage is the magic happening everywhere, which can be tuned down (e.g., I disabled proxy creation when using Guice).


I have to say that in my opinion, the entire notion of Dependency Injection is overrated.

DI is the modern day equivalent of global values. The things you are injecting are global singletons and pure code objects, otherwise, you couldn't inject them. Most uses of DI are forced on you in order to use a given library (JPA, Spring Data, etc). For the most part, DI provides the perfect environment for nurturing and cultivating spaghetti.

In all honesty, the easiest way to test a class is to ensure that all dependencies are created in a method that can be overridden. Then create a Test class derived from the actual class and override that method.

Then you instantiate the Test class and test all its methods. This won't be clear to some of you - the methods you are testing are the ones belonging to the class under test. And all of these method tests occur in a single class file - the unit testing class associated with the class under test. There is zero overhead here - this is how unit testing works.

In code, this concept looks like this...

class ClassUnderTest {

   protected final ADependency;
   protected final AnotherDependency;

   // Call from a factory or use an initializer 
   public void initializeDependencies() {
      aDependency = new ADependency();
      anotherDependency = new AnotherDependency();

class TestClassUnderTest extends ClassUnderTest {

    public void initializeDependencies() {
      aDependency = new MockitoObject();
      anotherDependency = new MockitoObject();

    // Unit tests go here...
    // Unit tests call base class methods

The result is exactly equivalent to using DI - that is, the ClassUnderTest is configured for testing.

The only differences are that this code is utterly concise, completely encapsulated, easier to code, easier to understand, faster, uses less memory, does not require an alternate configuration, does not require any frameworks, will never be the cause of a 4 page (WTF!) stack trace that includes exactly ZERO (0) classes which you wrote, and is completely obvious to anyone with even the slightest OO knowledge, from beginner to Guru (you would think, but would be mistaken).

That being said, of course we can't use it - it's too obvious and not trendy enough.

At the end of the day, though, my biggest concern with DI is that of the projects I have seen fail miserably, all of them have been massive code bases where DI was the glue holding everything together. DI is not an architecture - it is really only relevant in a handful of situations, most of which are forced on you in order to use another library (JPA, Spring Data, etc). For the most part, in a well designed code base, most uses of DI would occur at a level below where your daily development activities take place.

  • 6
    You've described not the equivalent, but the opposite of dependency injection. In your model, every object needs to know the concrete implementation of all its dependencies, but using DI that becomes the responsibility of the "main" component - to glue appropriate implementations together. Bear in mind that DI goes hand-in-hand with the other DI - dependency inversion, where you do not want high-level components to have hard dependencies on low-level components. – Logan Pickup May 30 '18 at 6:21
  • 1
    its neat when you have only one level of class inheritance and one level of dependencies. Surely it will turn into hell on earth as it expands? – Ewan May 30 '18 at 11:04
  • 4
    if you use interfaces and move initializeDependencies() into the constructor its the same but neater. The next step, adding construction parameters means you can do away will all your TestClasses. – Ewan May 30 '18 at 11:05
  • 5
    There is so much wrong with this. As others have said, your 'DI equivalent' example is not dependency injection at all, it is the antithesis, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the concept and introduces other potential pitfalls as well: partially initialized objects are a code smell As Ewan suggests, Move the initialization to the constructor, and pass them via constructor parameters. Then you have DI... – Mr.Mindor May 30 '18 at 23:14
  • 3
    Adding to @Mr.Mindor: there's a more general anti-pattern "sequential coupling" which doesn't just apply to initialisation. If methods of an object (or, more generally, calls of an API) must be run in a particular order, e.g. bar can only be called after foo, then that's a bad API. It's claiming to provide functionality (bar), but we can't actually use it (since foo might not have been called). If you want to stick with your initializeDependencies (anti?)pattern, you should at least make it private/protected and call it automatically from the constructor, so the API is sincere. – Warbo May 31 '18 at 12:35

Really your question boils down to "Is unit testing bad?"

99% of your alternate classes to inject will be mocks that enable unit testing.

If you do unit testing without DI you have the problem of how to get the classes to use mocked data or a mocked service. Lets say 'part of logic' as you may not be separating it out into services.

There are alternate ways of doing this, but DI is a good and flexible one. Once you have it in for testing you are virtually forced to use it everywhere, as you need some other piece of code, even it's so-called 'poor man's DI' which instantiates the concrete types.

It's hard to imagine a disadvantage so bad that the advantage of unit testing is overwhelmed.

  • 13
    I disagree with your assertion that DI is about unit testing. Facilitating unit testing is just one of the benefits of DI, and arguably not the most important one. – Robert Harvey May 29 '18 at 12:44
  • 5
    I disagree with your premise that unit testing and DI are so close. By using a mock/stub, we make the test suite lie to us a bit more: the system under test gets further from the real system. That's objectively bad. Sometimes that's outweighed by an upside: mocked FS calls don't require cleanup; mocked HTTP requests are fast, deterministic and work offline; etc. In contrast, every time we use a hard-coded new inside a method we know that the same code running in production was running during tests. – Warbo May 29 '18 at 19:44
  • 8
    No, it’s not “is unit testing bad?”, it’s “is mocking (a) really necessary, and (b) worth the increase in complexity incurred?” That’s a very different question. Unit testing isn’t bad (literally nobody is arguing this), and it’s definitely worth it in general. But not all unit testing requires mocking, and mocking does carry a substantial cost so it should, at least, be used judiciously. – Konrad Rudolph May 30 '18 at 9:17
  • 6
    @Ewan After your last comment I don’t think we agree. I’m saying that most unit tests don’t need DI [frameworks], because most unit tests don’t need mocking. In fact, I’d even use this as a heuristic for code quality: if most of your code can’t be unit tested without DI/mock objects then you’ve written bad code that was too rightly coupled. Most code should be highly decoupled, single responsibility and general-purpose, and be trivially testable in isolation. – Konrad Rudolph May 30 '18 at 10:54
  • 5
    @Ewan Your link gives a good definition of unit testing. By that definition my Order example is a unit test: it's testing a method (the total method of Order). You're complaining that it's calling code from 2 classes, my response is so what? We're not testing "2 classes at once", we're testing the total method. We should not care how a method does its job: those are implementation details; testing them causes fragility, tight coupling, etc. We only care about the method's behaviour (return value and side effects), not the classes/modules/CPU registers/etc. it used in the process. – Warbo May 31 '18 at 14:12

protected by gnat May 30 '18 at 11:32

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.