Hey guys, Just returned from a quick vacation. I don't think WCF presents any different scenario than MEF or any lazy discovery. WCF Facility would take advantage of the same deferred resolution hook to provide WCF managed proxies that were only defined in the standard system.serviceModel configuration.
2009/8/11 Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> > Okay,We have two distinct requests here. > One is for WCF stuff, and as presented, it looks like life styles can > resolve that. > Second is for additional providers for handlers, for things like MEF, lazy > component discovery, etc. > Is this accruate? > > 2009/8/11 Krzysztof Koźmic <krzysztof.koz...@gmail.com> > >> >> Agreed. (inline) >> >> > >> > Argh, NO! >> No, letting lazy handler provider, or whatever we call it decide whether >> it wants to register the handler in the container or not, should let you >> cover probably all the scenarios. >> I say let's have _a_ way of implementing that, then we'll spike its >> usage in WCF Facility (and if I find some time, I plan to do also MEF >> integration that would require this as well) and see how that works, and >> what did we miss. Ay? >> > >> > If this is what you want, all you need to do is to write a custom life >> > cycle. >> >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" group. To post to this group, send email to castle-project-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to castle-project-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
