Right now we use DI/IOC and when we need to pass extra parameters to a constructor we use a factory class e.g.
public class EmailSender
{
internal Email
I'm not quite sure about this strong "it is bad" answer gave by Krzysztof. I think there's some trade-off and preference in there without absolutely categorizing them as bad or good.
I think using a service locator is indeed hiding your dependencies inside the class instead of exposing them through constructors. And it is an inconvenient in my opinion because you will not know your class is missing something until the service locator is called without being configured.
But the DI thing is not free of that kind of code darkness. When you use DI, it is really not obvious to understand how those dependencies just "appeared" (DI magic) in your constructor. By using a SL, you at least can see where those dependencies are coming from.
But still, when testing a class that expose those dependencies on her constructors, you (almost) can't miss it. That is not the case using a service locator.
I'm not saying Krzysztof was wrong, because I agree with him for the most. But I'm pretty sure using a service locator is not necessarily a bad "design" and certainly not simply bad.
Phil
yes - it is bad.
Another, even more important aspect, is that your components are tied to your service locator.
You're now unable to instantiate them just like that - you need a completely set up service locator in place every time you need to use a component.
The largest reason I can think of (without just looking at issues with Service Locators in general) is that it is not what I as a user of your class would expect.
Meta discussion:
Some DI frameworks (Guice for example) will build the factory for you.
Some people advocate separating the "newable" from the "injectable".