Thanks Krzysztof,
I will respond soon with my extended thoughts. I am also working on a CodeProject article detailing my work and findings as well... Thanks again Adam Langley Senior Developer From: castle-project-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:castle-project-us...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Krzysztof Kozmic Sent: Wednesday, 23 June 2010 10:07 p.m. To: castle-project-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: decomission of transient services in child containers resolved/configured by a parent Adam, That's an interesting scenario. Generally, as I blogged recently, container hierarchies are a teritory not very well defined, both implementation wise, and conceptually. I would be very interested in getting your opinion on it. What I think, is that probably similar thing should happen as in case of neseting containers - where releasing nested container, releases components resolved through it. I don't know why that's different in case of Container wrappers, to be honest I never used them so maybe there's a reason for having this behavior rather than some other? Can you think of such scenario where nesting containers along with wrappers would not make sense? And while we're on it - I'd really appreciate if you wanted to contribute to Windsor's documentation on the topic: http://stw.castleproject.org/Windsor.MainPage.ashx Perhaps by writing the docs and puring all your knowledge to paper will help us crystalize some ideas around this. Anyone else who is using this functionality - feel free to join the discussion (and write docs!) Krzysztof On 23/06/2010 10:04 AM, Adam Langley wrote: I am testing a specific use-case for the Windsor ContainerWrapper which I would like to run past the forum. The ContainerWrapper is a ComponentModel ServiceContainer - the essence of its purpose is to provide 'siting' functionality to components, a sited componed being one that has it's lifecycle managed (automatic disposal when the owner of the ServiceContainer is disposed), and provide services to the components directly within. I have a standard Windows Forms control hierarchy, where by I have replaced the default 'components' collection with a ContainerWrapper. These ContainerWrappers are chained through the control-hierarchy so that a deeply nested UserControl can obtain services from the Form simply by calling 'GetService'. Now, this works perfectly, I am just having a small issue with lifecycle management of services. Form ContainerWrapper1 UserControl1 ContainerWrapper2 UserControl2 TransientService | | | | | | [|] .ctor() | | | | | [|]---------->[|] .ctor() [|] | | | [|]-----------[|]-------------->[|] .ctor() | | | [|] [|] [|]-------------->[|] .ctor() [|] | [|] [|] [|]---------------[|]--------------->[|] | [|] [|] [|] [|] GetService [|] | [|] [|] [|] [|]<---------------[|] | [|] [|] GetService [|] [|] [|] | [|] [|]<--------------[|]---------------[|] [|] .ctor() | [|] [|]---------------[|]---------------[|]----------------[|]--------------->[|] [|] [|] [|] [|] [|] [|] [|] [|] [|] [|] [|] | [|] [|] [|] [|] | | [|] [|] [|] | | | [|] [|] | | | | [|] As in the diagram, the form creates the UserControl and sites it within the ContainerWrapper1, which in turn (InitializeComponent) creates UserControl2 and sites it within ContainerWrapper2. These wrappers are chained, but their Kernels are not (this is how the ContainerWrapper works internally). When UserControl2 asks for a service, which is configured at the ContainerWrapper1 level, the call gets promoted (NOT via the Kernel), from ContainerWrapper2 to ContainerWrapper1. UserControl2 now has a reference to a transient service. I have a case where by UserControl1 (and all its child controls) needs to be removed from Form.Controls collection, and disposed. This is fine, however ContainerWrapper1 holds the reference to the transient service (which is owned by the Form), so it is not disposed - even though the service was requested at the ContainerWrapper2 level.... Does this behaviour make sense? Or should (logically) ContainerWrapper2 be considered the 'owner' of the disposal policy of the service, and as such, dispose/release the transient instance? Thanks Adam Langley -- 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-us...@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. -- 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-us...@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. -- 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-us...@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.
