I would like to have a special Resolve function which allows to add
additional dependencys without knowing its parameter names. The matching
should be on the type. If there are two arguments with the same type.
The container could throw an exception.

Look at this example. The parameters name here is unnecessary because i
give it an typed order object and the contains already knows that there
is only one argument of type order.

class ViewModel{ public ViewModel(Order model){..} }

container.Resolve(new Order(...))

instead of

container.Resolve(new{model=new Order(...)});

-Steve

On 21.01.2010 13:57, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Now that a new version of Windsor is out, Krzysztof has brought to my
> attention the need to plan the next version.
> I thought about this for a while and I think that this is my initial list of
> things that I would like to see in the next version of Windsor.
> 
>    - InjectMembers(instance) - resolve dependencies on an existing instance
>    without registering the type in the container
>    That would be useful for situations where the instance is created by
>    someone else (like the Page instance in ASP.Net WebForms).
>    - Add something like StructureMap Registries, just to allow standartized
>    approach to configue the container.
>       - inherit container ?
>       - facilities ?
>       - The goal here is just to have a standard recommended way of doing
>       it, rather than putting it in Application_Start
>    - Consider adding attributes like [Service] - to make auto registration
>    easier.
>    - Convention based registration for fluent stuff
>       - IFoo -> Foo
>       - IFoo -> FooImpl
>       - IFoo -> FooService
>    - Generate proxies to match up lifestyles of components that have
>    different life styles.
>       - So if I am singleton and depends on request scope stuff, I get a
>       proxy that match that up.
>    - Global settings - make it nicer to:
>       - Default Lifestyle setting
>       - Default disposable tracking setting
>    - Consolidate the Windsor & MicroKernel assemblies, I don't see a good
>    reason why we still have this split between them.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
-- 
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.


Reply via email to