I would love this: - Make AddFacility method behave like Add in HashSet, that is return true and do add the facility if it's not there yet, or ignore the call, don't throw and return false
Instead of bool it could be an Enum? Either way though I would be happy. -d 2011/1/31 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> > I have already made a change in the trunk some time ago that throws > immediately if you've added the same facility twice with more descriptive > message. > Having said that - I do understand the scenario Dru is facing, and actually > we have a (minor) dependency on TFF in WCF Facility too, although we don't > register it there. > So other than just leaving it as is, I have two proposed solutions for > that: > > - Make AddFacility method behave like Add in HashSet, that is return true > and do add the facility if it's not there yet, or ignore the call, don't > throw and return false > - Make TypedFactoryFacility available OOTB in the container, that is > pre-register it. > - Mix the above approaches, so that we don't break existing clients - their > calls to AddFacility<TFF> will just be ignored and everything will work > - Anything else? > > > HTH, > Krzysztof > > > On 01/02/2011 6:59 AM, Dru Sellers wrote: > > If you look at my first post I am already using GetFacilities() and it is > working just fine. > > 2 different 3rd party facilities? At this point not many projects outside > of castle actually ship with Windsor Facilities, so I am not to worried > about that. > > I was really just looking for a shortcut method. :) > > -d > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Jason Meckley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I'm not familiar with getfacilities(). that may be another option. I don't >> like adding facilities from within one another, for the scenario you are >> currently facing. what if 2 different 3rd party facilities add the typed >> factory facility? you could resolve the scenario you are facing. >> >> to keep the facility frictionless you could reverse the "add facility" >> logic I proposed above. have a configuration option to not add the facility. >> this would be used in advanced/custom configuration scenarios. >> >> -- >> 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]<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]<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.
