Comments on: Declarative Context Adapters in Autofac 2

By: The Relationship Zoo : Nicholas Blumhardt

The Relationship Zoo : Nicholas Blumhardt — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:11:47 +0000

[...] have any special knowledge of any of these adapter types. They’re all plugged in as IRegistrationSource implementations, meaning that you are free to change or extend the set of adapter types as your needs [...]

By: Resolve Anything : Nicholas Blumhardt

Resolve Anything : Nicholas Blumhardt — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:36:54 +0000

[...] who’ve been following along with this blog lately will have seen how registration sources provide a simple way to extend the container to understand new component types (like Lazy [...]

By: Dew Drop – January 2, 2010 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew

Dew Drop – January 2, 2010 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:46:21 +0000

[...] Around with Autofac2 and Declarative Context Adapters in Autofac 2 (Nicholas [...]

By: OJ

OJ — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:14:48 +0000

I was thinking exactly the same thing re: Unity extension. Going to give that a whirl when I get back to work.

Re: EP suggestion -> that’s exactly the shiznit I was talking about. I might even spike our solution with an Autofac IoC setup and see what the troops think Ya never know your luck eh?

Cheers bud
OJ

By: Nicholas Blumhardt

Nicholas Blumhardt — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 02:45:32 +0000

Ey OJ!

I like the ‘strongly-typed extended properties’ idea…

builder.RegisterType()
.As()
.WithExtendedProperties(ep => {
ep.For(m => m.AppenderName, “screen”);
ep.For(m => m.Dpi, 126);
});

There are some limitations in the builder syntax that might make this a bit trickier, I’ll have a spike and see how it goes…

I’m sure Unity will be updated to match .NET 4 as well sometime, might be interesting to try Lazy as a Unity extension?

See you soon for sure!

By: OJ

OJ — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 02:00:13 +0000

Very nice mate. I quite like the implementation and have been pondering the thought of the use of Lazy types in our current project (currently using Unity). I don’t think that the overhead of using non-Lazy types is that high for us at the moment, but down the track we may run into a few scenarios where we’re ending up constructing a lot of stuff that we don’t need.

Obviously we can’t yet bind ourselves to any .NET 4 stuff (despite using MVC Preview 2 ), but when it’s released it’s certainly on the cards. However, being bound to Unity I’m not sure how easy it’d be to convince the troops to use another IoC container.

So what are the chances of getting some lambda goodness when setting extended properties? I can’t help but feel horrid when I see strings as property names.

Love ya work mate. Keep it up! Must catch up for lunch or something soon.
OJ