15 messages in com.googlegroups.castle-project-develRe: TypedFactoryFacility in MicroKern...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| bittercoder | Apr 26, 2007 10:02 pm | |
| Hamilton Verissimo | Apr 27, 2007 10:45 am | |
| Craig Neuwirt | Apr 27, 2007 11:01 am | |
| Craig Neuwirt | Apr 27, 2007 11:28 am | |
| bittercoder | Apr 27, 2007 4:53 pm | |
| Hamilton Verissimo | Apr 28, 2007 12:49 am | |
| Craig Neuwirt | Apr 28, 2007 8:26 am | |
| Hamilton Verissimo | Apr 28, 2007 8:31 am | |
| Craig Neuwirt | Apr 28, 2007 8:35 am | |
| bittercoder | May 3, 2007 4:21 am | |
| Craig Neuwirt | May 3, 2007 5:26 am | |
| bittercoder | May 6, 2007 2:36 am | |
| Craig Neuwirt | May 6, 2007 6:16 am | |
| Craig Neuwirt | May 6, 2007 7:53 am | |
| Craig Neuwirt | May 6, 2007 7:54 am |
| Subject: | Re: TypedFactoryFacility in MicroKernel doesn't work...? | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | bittercoder (bitt...@gmail.com) | |
| Date: | Apr 27, 2007 4:53:25 pm | |
| List: | com.googlegroups.castle-project-devel | |
It's not a particularly useful facility in my opinion, contrasted to just implementing the factory yourself, which might take like 6 or 7 lines of code ;o) - but I was going to use it as part of an example in my container tutorial series (which is when I discovered it didn't work!) - Perhaps the more appropriate solution is to move it from the MicroKernel into Windsor (so the MicroKernel is kept free of things like the ProxyOptions) - but I wouldn't want to move the other facilities... things like the FactorySupport and Startable facility should be available without the Windsor container in the mix I would've thought.
Let me know what you think should be done... I can then post a patch up with the changes to resolve it if you like.
On Apr 28, 6:02 am, "Craig Neuwirt" <cneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
We could certainly add proxy interfaces with the ProxyOptions. I added it since my facilities needed to do so. However as mentioned, the ProxyOptions live in Windsor since proxying is not a primary concern with the MicroKernel. This prevents the facilities in the MicroKernel from being able to do apply the custom interfaces. We can either 1. Move the ProxyOptions to the kernel 2. or Move the facilities in the MicroKernel.
1 is not very nice since MicroKernel does not currently depend on DP2
On 4/27/07, Hamilton Verissimo <hamm...@castlestronghold.com> wrote:
DynamicProxy2 has this constraint. The simplest way is forcing the creating of a proxy without a target. Maybe the proxy options that Craig added can do that (or at least show you the way)
On 4/27/07, bittercoder <bitt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone know if the TypedFactoryFacility in the MicroKernel works at the moment...
I had a go at using this afternoon and it gave me a bit of grief... the problem appears to be that the the kernel can't construct a proxied instance of the target factory interface, because the "implementation" class used (called Empty) doesn't implement the required factory interface (unsurprisingly).
I assume this is because the DefaultProxyFactory isn't capable of constructing an interface proxy without a target (or a class proxy with additional interfaces, at least not without being able to access the ProxyOptions class, which is in Castle.Windsor, rather then Castle.MicroKernel...
Any ideas as to how I can get this working... hopefully without moving the facility out of the MicroKernel?
Chez,
- Alex
-- Cheers, hamilton verissimo hamm...@castlestronghold.com http://www.castlestronghold.com/