hehe...
IMO i share the view that transients should not be tracked by the container,
but also, that i'm in a position where i have an extremely large legacy
codebase violating every principle of SOLID, backed with no unit nor
integration tests! (think 10,000 line files with 1,000 line methods, x200
files). in this scenario, having no burden tracking is closest to the
original implementation. it's hard enough as is avoiding a service locator.
for cases where it needed to hit the database, i was using the TFF like
this:
using (var dal = _factory.Create<IDal>())
{
// dal.GetDataSet();
}
unexpectedly, every time i hit the database i leaked a dal instance. in
other cases, i was rerouting the creation of user sessions to the factory.
that one's a different story as sessions are stored all over the place and
cannot easily be predicted how they're cleaned up.
2010/4/13 Krzysztof Koźmic (2) <[email protected]>
> and why are you using NoTrackingReleasePolicy in the first place?
>
> --
> 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]<castle-project-users%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en.
>
>
--
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.
