IMO the assembly containing the entry point is responsible. Dealing with installers and registering them one at a time can be a pain. To ease this pain and encourage reuse, I typically define installers as abstract base classes. Then I subclass them in my application_start assembly and register with a single call to FromAssembly.This. if certain components need to be registered when the app starts, just ask kernel.HasComponent
On Nov 26, 5:08 pm, Dru Sellers <[email protected]> wrote: > Its not suprising that I would make something harder than it really needs to > be. > > So, what I am working with is your average enterprise system. We have > several core services that are provided for us to handle intergration with > other teams. Typically this is going to an installer for handling metrics > output so that our networks team can monitor application performance, an > installer that has to do with configuration as well so that our appsupport > people can configure our systems from a central point. The perfmon installer > as well as our application code needs the configuration installer to be > there. > > My question is then, who is responsible for installing it? Of course, I > could just add the installers by hand see that the IConfigurationStore is > missing in a YSOD or its lovely equiv in other environments, but that seems > a little silly. Just thought I would throw this out there and see how the > rest of the crowd is solving this oh so fun problem. > > :) > -d > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Jason Meckley <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I wouldn't see value in having installers depend on other installers. > > the point is that each is an atomic unit. if you have dependent > > components, then i would register them in a single installer or > > encapsulate it within a facility. > > > you can have a facility register additional facilities. > > void Init() > > { > > Kernel.AddFacility<Other>().Regsiter(...); > > } > > > On Nov 24, 9:33 am, Dru Sellers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Is there any way to have the installer require other installers? > > > > or facilities? > > > > At work we have carved up a lot of common code into various installers, > > and > > > I was hoping that instead of developers getting a missing component, they > > > could get a missing facility/installer error > > > > -d > > > -- > > 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%2Bun > > [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.
