Comments for Zen and the art of Castle maintenance

Comment on Castle.Extensibility by hammett

hammett — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:51:12 +0000

It builds on top of MEF. I’m using MEF primitives (each bundle is a composition silo) expressed using MEF’s ComposablePartDefinition.

Comment on Castle.Extensibility by David

David — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:49:01 +0000

How might this compare at the feature level to MEF?

Comment on Castle.Extensibility by hammett

hammett — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 01:07:42 +0000

100% f#. you can actually see the code at https://github.com/castleproject/Extensibility, esp. Hosting.Binder

Comment on Castle.Extensibility by 7sharp9

7sharp9 — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:56:50 +0000

What percentage is F# 100% and how are you getting true isolation without rogue exceptions causing the whole app domain to crumble i.e. exceptions from Tasks that are not handles etc ?

Comment on FAKE impressions by Chris Nicola

Chris Nicola — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:32:31 +0000

I loved Fake when I played around with it a while back. I was looking to replace a really complex NAnt mess at the time with either psake or fake. I greatly preferred Fake, PS scripting is brutally verbose and ugly to me. However Fake didn’t have much functionality for a lot of common build tasks and I couldn’t find the time to add it in.

I had trouble with something as simple as manipulating the Assembly.cs files. You can see my comments here:
http://www.navision-blog.de/2009/04/04/modifying-assemblyinfo-and-version-via-fake-f-make/

With sufficient utility functions Fake could be pretty awesome.

Comment on Using MEF scopes to support service overrides by hammett

hammett — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:59:31 +0000

Is the removal of .NewScope something that didnt make into the latest codeplex bits?

Comment on Using MEF scopes to support service overrides by Daniel Plaisted

Daniel Plaisted — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:21:08 +0000

I think we got rid of or are going to get rid of CreationPolicy.NewScope. It wasn’t really doing anything, since the scoping is set up via CompositionScopeDefinitions. You just use an ExportFactory and it will have access to exports on the public surface of child scopes to the one you’re in.

It looks like parts which don’t have any scope metadata won’t be included at all. I’d probably put them in the app level catalog.

Also, the greater than and less than symbols for generics are causing parts of your code not to show up.

Daniel

Comment on A “decent” DirectoryCatalog implementation by hammett

hammett — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:35:24 +0000

and I believe this is just your corpus callosum coming up with an explanation for it :-)

Comment on A “decent” DirectoryCatalog implementation by Daniel Plaisted

Daniel Plaisted — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:24:35 +0000

I think the reason we don’t guard against this is because the problem is missing dependencies, and catching ReflectionTypeLoadExceptions from Assembly.GetTypes() won’t help you if you have a dependency in a method implementation that isn’t exposed in the public surface. In that case you will get a FileNotFoundException the first time you run the method.

Comment on MR 3 update / Castle Blade by srdjan

srdjan — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 04:17:17 +0000

Hi, its been a long time :) Hope all is well.
After reading your post, I was left with impression that Monorail+++ is server side MVC Framework with the new server side view engine (Blade). My thoughts are that these days presentation concerns should be client side responsibility. Server side responsibilities should be to simply serve static resources and RESTful APIs…