Thanks for clarifying :) On Dec 7, 10:02 am, Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> wrote: > Well actually my idea was to provide something similar to > IHandlersSelector for ResolveAll calls so that you can > sort/filter/inspect/whatever before the handlers get resolved. > This would be an extension point that would allow what Mogens wants to > do, among other things that were requested by people. > > K > > On 07/12/2010 4:54 AM, Mogens Heller Grabe wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi group! > > > I recently had the need to specify the order of the objects resolved > > by the ArrayResolver, and I came up with a simple way of ordering the > > objects based on implementation types implementing > > IExecutesBefore<AnotherType>/IExecutesAfter<SomeType&tg; and/ > > or [ExecutesBefore(typeof(SomeType))]/ > > [ExecutesAfter(typeof(SomeType))] attributes. > > > I was diskussing contributing my OrderedArrayResolver, when Krzysztof > > made me realize that allowing handlers to be ordered instead would be > > nicer, because then ResolveAll would work this way as well. > > > Does anyone have any comments or ideas for this? > > > Would you prefer ordering hints on service types instead of > > implementation types? Or both?
-- 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.
