Hmmm,
actually you may be right...
If I split this into two files, one having only parameter definition,
and second one with components #{referencing} the parameters and
referencing the 1st one it could be just good enough...
especially if I kept the 2nd one as embedded resource in my assembly to
hide it from the admin...
Craig Neuwirt wrote:
> Right. and it has support for defines which improve readability and
> basic conditionals
>
> 2009/9/23 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>
> You mean ConfigurationInstaller ?
>
> I don't think so - after quick check it looks like it works only
> for the standard structure.
>
> Krzysztof
>
>
> Craig Neuwirt wrote:
>> So are you gonna be able to use the standard xml configuration
>> parsing?
>>
>> 2009/9/23 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>
>> Say,
>>
>>
>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
>> <configuration>
>> <components>
>> <component id="foo">
>> <parameters>
>> <name>Krzysztof</name>
>> </parameters>
>> </component>
>> </components>
>> </configuration>
>>
>> vs
>>
>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
>> <configuration>
>> <foo name="Krzysztof" />
>> </configuration>
>>
>>
>> Craig Neuwirt wrote:
>>> How much baggage is there as is?
>>>
>>> 2009/9/23 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>
>>> That's right.
>>>
>>> I guess I'm gonna play with creating a facility for this
>>> to have the minimal syntax baggage possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> James Curran wrote:
>>>> So, the correct form is the following??
>>>>
>>>> IWindsorContainer container = new
>>>> WindsorContainer()
>>>>
>>>> .Install(Configuration.FromXmlFile("Config.admin"))
>>>> .AddComponent<IMyComponent,
>>>> MyComponent>("foo");
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2009/9/23 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>>> Craig,
>>>>>
>>>>> I found my stupid mistake :)
>>>>> I need to load the xml first,
>>>>> then do AddComponent...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig Neuwirt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds nice. I'll have to take a look
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/9/23 Ayende Rahien <[email protected]>
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am reading it via a facility and setting the appropriate
>>>>>> things on the
>>>>>> configuration.
>>>>>> It means that I get a NICE config syntax, which is very
>>>>>> admin friendly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/9/23 Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]>
>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey Ayende,
>>>>>>> Are you doing something different for your Rhino Service
>>>>>>> Bus?
>>>>>>> craig
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2009/9/23 Ayende Rahien <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take a look at how I am doing things for the Rhino Service
>>>>>>>> Bus.
>>>>>>>> And take a look here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2008/12/31/didja-know-merging-windsor-configuration-with-automatic-registration.aspx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2009/9/23 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My goal is to have the following:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - register all the components in the code
>>>>>>>>> - externalize some of configuration options (like
>>>>>>>>> addresses and ports,)
>>>>>>>>> to external config file that a non-programming admin
>>>>>>>>> would edit.
>>>>>>>>> - be able to specify defaults for these options in code,
>>>>>>>>> and override
>>>>>>>>> these from the config if present
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The major point is to have just the minimal necessary
>>>>>>>>> amount of stuff
>>>>>>>>> put in the config file, to keep it clean, minimal and as
>>>>>>>>> readable as
>>>>>>>>> possible - something like: http://gist.github.com/191862
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, Henry pointed me to Configuration.FromXmlFile
>>>>>>>>> method, but it seems
>>>>>>>>> to be working with the full blown windsor config files
>>>>>>>>> only, which I
>>>>>>>>> want to avoid, if only to make sure admin can't screw my
>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>> registration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do we have some way of doing this baked in? If no, would
>>>>>>>>> you see it
>>>>>>>>> beneficial to have that in the framework?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
