That's why I implemented the MK without checks - non "createable" types (abstracts, interfaces) - no check for the interface/service (does the service implements the interface?)
Those weren't overlooks, it were on purposed, by design. And I suggest keeping that way instead of doing something more complex to support scenarios that we already support. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just applied a patch to detect and give a good error if we are trying to > register a component whose implementation is abstract. > That broke the WCF facility, which allow you to register just the interface, > and rely on the WCF machinery to provide the real implementation. > Currently I "fixed" the build by making sure that the test in the code > specify an implementation, but considering a common case for the WCF client > facility, we won't _have_ an implementation. > Any suggestions for solving this? > > > -- Cheers, hammett http://hammett.castleproject.org/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
