I agree with everything you said, I just want to be sure that the majority of users agree too, before doing the change :)
Cheers John On Feb 24, 10:24 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic (2) <[email protected]> wrote: > Fact that MonoRail should be built around IoC and with IoC in mind is > a no brainer IMO. > > It should have to have some IoC to function, but does not depend on > any particular one. > Much like FubuMVC, OpenRASTA, NServiceBus and other frameworks handle > this. > > obviously by default it should ship with Windsor integration, while > adapters for other frameworks would live in contrib. > > And it should never call container directly, via some sort of > ServiceLocator abstraction. > Where it has to pull a custom, abstract factory should be defined, so > that either typed factory facility could be used, > manually coded factory, or factory backed by any other container. > > On 24 Lut, 12:05, John Simons <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To get a better understanding on what to have out of the box in > > Monorail, I've put another poll up onhttp://twtpoll.com/zr1tt0 > > > So if you've got a moment, and are using Monorail, please vote. > > > Thanks > > John -- 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.
