The question is: will you trade off the consequences of not calling Dispose on your parts of your object graph that are disposable by not having to invoke Release on the container?
If yes, then simply change the tracking policy. You dont need to do the house keeping that you're doing.. By default I believe the current behavior goes towards the correct and expected deterministic behavior. On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Victor Kornov <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, if I'm not being clear... I don't know what specifics you'd like > about my scenario. > We have a web app with MVP setup where presenter has a reference to view & > view has reference to presenter. > These presenters may have "child" ones in UI sense. Child presenters are not > constructor- nor property- injected. > We do calls like GetXXXChildPresenter which eventually end up resolving > child presenters through Windsor > with correct view supplied through ctor params. > > AFAIR, transient & disposable types are not combined in our dependency > chains. > But to be foolproof, I have to call release on all root components > (presenters) per web request. > To do so, I need to track all presenters myselves. > This is not a problem now, when I know it. In this particular case I've > "solved" it in a matter of minutes. > The problem is I was totally unaware that container expects me to do so. It > seems there more people like me. Which misuse the container. It would be > nice if possible for container to be more explicit about the thing, i.e. > throw meaningfull exceptions. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
