Hi
As for your concerns.
1. AbstractInvocation whould _not_ know about the field. The
AbstractInvocation's code could be similar to this:
protected AbstractInvocation(
object target, object proxy, IInterceptor[] interceptors,
Type targetType, MethodInfo targetMethod, object[]
arguments,
ref IInterceptor[] methodInterceptors, IInterceptorSelector
selector)
{
Debug.Assert( selector != null, "if this .ctor is called
selector must exist" );
if (methodInterceptors == null)
{
methodInterceptors = selector.SelectInterceptors(
targetType, targetMethod, interceptors ) ?? new IInterceptor[0];
}
this.proxy = proxy;
this.target = target;
this.interceptors = methodInterceptors;
this.targetType = targetType;
this.targetMethod = targetMethod;
this.arguments = arguments;
}
all AbstractInvocation knows about is that it gets a ref IInterceptor[]
parameter. I think it's cleaner than passing whole cache, and then
havign to do lookup.
2. Why would we want to clean the cache? Can you give an example of a
scenario that would require that?
3. I don't think I understand the last part. The one about using
reflection to get FieldInfo. Are you still referring to the clear cache
scenario?
If not, and you're referring to passing methodInterceptors to generated
type derived from AbstractInvocation, I don't understand why you need
FieldInfo for?
You don't need to pass fieldInfo, but field reference. So the field
could be created and only used in the method that generates overriden
method.
Krzysztof
>>> [email protected] 2008-12-23 03:17 >>>
As Krzysztof has mentioned the cache has to be per instance. I
mentioned
earlier just using a dictionary in the proxy because I thought it would
keep
the proxy neater, but having a field for each method may be better (I'm
not
sure how much faster it would make it). However, it means that the
AbstractInvocation needs to write to each field instead of being passed
a
simple cache object. Clearing the cache has to know about each field
for
each MethodInfo, but that might not matter depending on where the
clear
cache method is provided. If we went with an interceptors field for
each
method wouldn't that mean that the code generation of the method would
have
to be changed to pass this field to the IInvocation, otherwise you have
to
use reflection to get the FieldInfo (which could be cached but
complicates
things more)?
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it
is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary,
privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you
are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain,
copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this
message in error, please delete all copies of this message and notify the
sender immediately by return mail or fax ATSI S.A.(+4812) 285 36 04.
Any email attachment may contain software viruses which could damage your own
computer system. Whilst reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this
risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result
of software viruses. You should therefore carry out your own virus checks
before opening any attachments.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
