also the facilities provide configuration, which is nice. -d On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Dru Sellers <d...@drusellers.com> wrote:
> This might be clearer is the WindsorInstaller passed some kind of component > register instead of the actual container, then in the Facility you actually > had the container to do all the low level stuff. > > Based on my limited experience with the installers I feel that I could > actually accompolish the same task with either approach. > > Am I crazy? > > -d > > 2010/9/24 Krzysztof Koźmic <krzysztof.koz...@gmail.com> > > João, >> >> here's how I see it: >> >> Facilities are extensions on top of the container. They encapsulate single >> logical piece of additional functionality.They may be using some more >> objects/components to provide that functionality. They may use other >> components to provide that functionality, like interceptors, >> lifecycleconcerns, ComponentModel creation contributors, lazy component >> loaders or what have you. These components coexist and cooperate to provide >> that piece of functionality. >> To make the facility self contained and cohesive it's ok (and desired) for >> it to register these components in its Init method. >> >> Installers are meant to register application services. While facilities >> register framework, low level code, that is intrinsicly aware of the >> container, Installers register application services which have no knowledge >> of the container. I would have like "RepositoriesInstaller", >> "ControllersInstaller", "ViewsViewModelsInstaller", >> "MessageHandlersInstaller" etc. >> >> I do add facilities in an installer if the facility is working only with >> the components registered in that installer. Otherwise I tend to >> pre-register the facilities. >> >> Hopefully that clarifies this a bit. >> >> Note to self - add that to FAQ >> >> cheers, >> Krzysztof >> >> >> 2010/9/24 João Bragança <j...@braviawebdesign.com> >> >> A lot of the talk about facilities and installers got me thinking. >>> Before Windsor 2.x, I would use facilities to do a lot of the >>> component registration work. But now it seems like installers are the >>> way to go. Still, a facility may. need to register many components to >>> extend the container. Is it legitimate for an installer to add >>> facilities to the container? Or what about adding an InstallComponents >>> method to IFacility to take advantage of the optimized registration? >>> It would be cool to do this all from one 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 >>> castle-project-us...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> castle-project-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<castle-project-users%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> 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 >> castle-project-us...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> castle-project-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<castle-project-users%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> 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 castle-project-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to castle-project-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en.
