Re: [Springnet-developer] Ref: Microsft Object Builder

[Gaurav V. <gau...@gm...>]

Great!

Anxiously looking forward to it.... :)

Cheers,
Gaurav Vaish
www.mastergaurav.com
www.edujini-labs.com
------------------
Spoken Words Fly Away, Written Words Last Forever
------------------


  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Mark Pollack=20
  To: 'Gaurav Vaish' ; 'Spring.Net Devlopers'=20
  Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 17:16
  Subject: RE: [Springnet-developer] Ref: Microsft Object Builder


  Hi,

  From the end user point of view it will be just as clean. I wouldn't =
worry about the implementation details at the moment.  The goal will of =
course to be as feature complete, and probably more, (by type wiring, by =
named, autowiring etc)  than what object builder offers.=20

  Cheers,

  Mark

  =20

  =20

  From: Gaurav Vaish [mailto:gau...@gm...]=20
  Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:19 AM
  To: Mark Pollack; 'Spring.Net Devlopers'
  Subject: Re: [Springnet-developer] Ref: Microsft Object Builder

  =20

  Hi Mark,

  =20

      Thanks for the pointer... I do understand the tight-boundedness to =
the attributes, but IMHO - that may be sometimes preferred. At least, =
there's an option.

  =20

      However, I do not, at least at this point in time, feel really =
comfortable with the way it seems to be implemented -- implementing =
IObjectFactoryAware and PostProcessPropertyValues -- seems very =
cumbersome.

  =20

      I find the Object-Builder a lot more cleaner approach. Having said =
that I must also confess that I don't know the insights when you say, =
"I've currently scheduled it for Spring.NET 1.2" -- possibly it's clean =
there.

  =20

      I'll just give a sample of how it can be used in Object-Builder:

  =20

  1. Class with dependency (can be InjectionContructor, =
InjectionProperty or InjectionMethod)

  =20

      public class DependentClass

      {

          [InjectionContructor]

          public DependentClass([Service] IMyService service)

          {

              ....

          }

      }

  =20

  2. Serivce implementation:

  =20

      //Lazy initialization for a service of type IMyService

      [Service(typeof(IMyService), AddOnDemand =3D true)]

      public class ServiceImplementation : IMyService

      {

          ...

      }

  =20

      and, that's it.

  =20

      There are other ways also, but what I have is that my class is not =
bound to (dependent on) anything except for these attributes, which I =
think looks cleaner.

  =20

      Cleaner... as compared to what I find the URL you pointed out, =
which reads "[Inject("MyMovieFinder")]" -- which says that I must =
register a type with a name MyMovieFinder and then must know the name of =
the component at design time.

  =20

      IMHO, binding should be on the type and may not be on the name. =
Having said that, I would also say that one thought just came to my mind =
-- let the "Service / Injection" be allowed to take a name - but =
optionally. I can look for a specific implementation and may be leave it =
for the default implementation.

  =20

      Not sure if I made any sense for the readers... :)

  =20

  Cheers,
  Gaurav Vaish
  www.mastergaurav.com
  www.edujini-labs.com
  ------------------
  Spoken Words Fly Away, Written Words Last Forever
  ------------------

  =20

  =20

    ----- Original Message -----=20

    From: Mark Pollack=20

    To: 'Gaurav Vaish' ; 'Spring.Net Devlopers'=20

    Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 16:35

    Subject: RE: [Springnet-developer] Ref: Microsft Object Builder

    =20

    Hi,

    =20

    Yes, there is.  You will see this week this functionality added to =
the Spring Java feature set.  I've posted on the forum how one might go =
about doing this now if you are interested in using the existing =
extension points in the current spring.net container.  The link is here =
http://forum.springframework.net/showthread.php?t=3D3393 =20

    =20

    Just to note the trade offs, while there are pros to doing this, it =
does tie your class to a specific library, that one that attribute, even =
if you use that object in cases where the attribute is not read for any =
purpose.

    =20

    Hope this helps.

    Mark

    =20

    =20

    From: spr...@li... =
[mailto:spr...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Gaurav Vaish
    Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:23 AM
    To: Spring.Net Devlopers
    Subject: [Springnet-developer] Ref: Microsft Object Builder

    =20

    Hi,

    =20

        I still wonder looking at the configuration required to work =
with SpringFramework.Net...

    =20

        Why do we need to specify the injection properties / =
constructors the way that we currently do in the configuration?

    =20

        Are there any plans to make use of the Object Builder =
(Dependency Injection) mechanism as provided in the Microsoft Object =
Builder (part of Composite UI Application Block) -- using attributes... =
This makes it a lot more convenient and elegant to work with. More =
importantly, I get rid of a large part of configuration file....

    =20

    =20

    =20

    Cheers,
    Gaurav Vaish
    www.mastergaurav.com
    www.edujini-labs.com
    ------------------
    Spoken Words Fly Away, Written Words Last Forever
    ------------------

    =20

    =20