forgot to mention, the new thread is going to be in the dev group, which is more appropriate
2009/8/11 Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> > Okay, now that I understand it, it is the same, yes.I'll start a new > thread with thoughts about the whole topic > > > 2009/8/11 Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> > >> The original feature request for the WCF Facility was to not require >> registering a client component for a WCF interface that is already defined >> in the app.config/web.config via the system.serviceModel section. This >> makes it nice and DRY to not have to indicate that you want a WCF Facility >> managed proxy in two different places (web.config and castle config). All >> the WCF Facility would do is hook into the lazy handler mechanism and >> determine if the requested services is defined in the current configuration >> file. If it is, it will automatically register the corresponding component >> in the container using the existing WCF Configuration. This seems to be the >> same scenario that MEF would use this hook for? >> >> >> 2009/8/11 Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> >> >>> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
