It won't be able to work as I described and it would be better if the AbstractInvocation doesn't have do any work, since it can just be passed the chosen interceptors. The proxy needs to hold the cache of Dictionary<MethodInfo, IInterceptor[]) and something needs to provide a ResetInterceptorSelectorCache(object proxy) method.
Fabian, how did you think this should work when you mentioned this option, because as far as I can see it will still need code gen changes. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > I think, lastly Jonathon has to make that decision as the project >> > lead. I'm Cc'ing him in case the thread hasn't caught his eye yet. > > Thanks Fabian, I have been following this thread. > > Regarding the patch, it is using C# 3.0 syntax (object initializers and > var). I thought we decided we wanted to just have VS2008 project files (so > we didn't have to maintain both) but still target the 2.0 compiler. > > At this stage I'm not sure whether all the change to the generation is > worth it, as Fabian has mentioned. I haven't got a use case for this either, > so I'm not sure which I'd actually want to use it. > > I do like the third option of pushing the selection stuff into the > AbstractInvocation instead of having to create a SelectingInterceptor. Maybe > we need a ProxyRuntimeOptions class for setting the Selector that can be > passed into the AbstractInvocation. The mixin members on > ProxyGenerationOptions could also move too this. > > -- > Jonathon Rossi > -- Jonathon Rossi --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
