In that case, I don't understand it, do read the app.config to integrate with that?
2009/8/11 Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> > Hey guys, > Just returned from a quick vacation. I don't think WCF presents any > different scenario than MEF or any lazy discovery. WCF Facility would take > advantage of the same deferred resolution hook to provide WCF managed > proxies that were only defined in the standard system.serviceModel > configuration. > > 2009/8/11 Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> > > Okay,We have two distinct requests here. >> One is for WCF stuff, and as presented, it looks like life styles can >> resolve that. >> Second is for additional providers for handlers, for things like MEF, lazy >> component discovery, etc. >> Is this accruate? >> >> 2009/8/11 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> Agreed. (inline) >>> >>> > >>> > Argh, NO! >>> No, letting lazy handler provider, or whatever we call it decide whether >>> it wants to register the handler in the container or not, should let you >>> cover probably all the scenarios. >>> I say let's have _a_ way of implementing that, then we'll spike its >>> usage in WCF Facility (and if I find some time, I plan to do also MEF >>> integration that would require this as well) and see how that works, and >>> what did we miss. Ay? >>> > >>> > If this is what you want, all you need to do is to write a custom life >>> > cycle. >>> >>> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" 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-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
