awesome! thx On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > already done > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:57 PM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I really dont have a problem with this. If we need a check and good >> error message, we need to add an if to the default activator. >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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/ >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> hammett >> http://hammett.castleproject.org/ >> >> > > > > >
-- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
