Yeah, the only problem with that approach is when the user is doing something that they shouldn't, and then they get bad error message.The end result now is that we make the check as late as possible (just before actually creating the instance), and warn the user about this, instead of blocking scenarios
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:58 AM, hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
