Valeriu,
That's a fair point and it was already addressed in v2.5 (to a degree).
If you create an installer (implement IWindsorInstaller) it lives in the
same namespace as all fluentregistration API so the API will be imported
outright.
Krzysztof
On 19/04/2011 10:15 PM, Valeriu Caraulean wrote:
For me it's more an issue the fact that "IWindsorContainer" and
"Component.For" are in different namespaces.
When I'm typing
container.Register(Co
at this moment I didn't get completition because Component requires a
namespace to declare. I have to type "Component." then to agree with
R# to import required namespace.
Your proposal definitely will make API more discoverable. Will it also
avoid including a namespace for "Component"?
2011/4/19 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
One of the most common complaints I'm hearing from people who want
to start with Windsor is that our registration API is hard. That
they go type container.Register and they get this:
if they have ReSharper, or this if they use bare VS:
And then they get lost hunting for what this IRegistration
creature is and how do I get one. And they hunt for implementation
and see classes like BasedOnDescriptor etc which confuse them even
more. They don't know where to start, and even though the comment
says "Use Component.For or AllTypes.FromAssembly" they don't see
it because it doesn't jump out at them from intellisense.
So I did a small experiment, and did some changes so that the
intellisense experience is the following:
And then when we get to pick actual overload:
With ReSharper it's obviously much nicer:
The way this works is I created the two additional overloads that
have the entry types in their signatures (AllTypes and Component
respectively) to give the user a hint about where they might look
to start. I would update the tooltip help to be more helpful.
The drawback of this is that if user tries to instantiate AllTypes
or Component or look for types that inherit from then they'll be
disappointed. The types are abstract with private constructor to
ensure no one inherits from them (which would be pointless
anyway). This also means that the two additional overloads will
never get invoked.
So my question to you is - what do you think about all of this?
Does it help? Is it worth the effort (having two more overloads
for mere benefit of some intellisense hints)? Do you have any
better ideas?
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto: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.
--
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.
