If the assert fails, where do i start looking?
-did my convention based registration fails?
-or one of the services doesn't have satisfied one of *his* dependences.

The second one is confusing for me and contra intuitive for newcomers.
I'd expect an exception rather...

2011/3/5, Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]>:
> Jose, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
>
> to make sure all components for service IFoo are resolvable this simple
> test will do:
>
> var countOfAllFoos = Kernel.GetHandlers(typeof(IFoo)).Length;
> var fooInstances = Kernel.ResolveAll<IFoo>();
>
> Assert.AreEqual(countOfAllFoos, fooInstances.Length);
>
> How the change to ResolveAll changes anything here? Actually it saves
> you from hitting false positives...
>
>
> On 05/03/2011 11:52 PM, José F. Romaniello wrote:
>> Well it is all related, because in the way i used to register before
>> this change the only way to test was calling the resolveall method and
>> verify if the service is in the result. If the service isnt there,
>> where do i have to start looking? If there is no exception...
>>
>> 2011/3/4, Krzysztof Koźmic<[email protected]>:
>>> Xavier,
>>>
>>> not really...
>>>
>>> I usually have a test for that...
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/03/2011 8:27 AM, Xavier wrote:
>>>> We use it exactly the same way and i didn't know it could return more
>>>> components than those registered for this service. So it should not
>>>> change anything.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, would it be possible for ResolveAll to tell when it does
>>>> not return all components because of missing dependencies?
>>>>
>>>> On 2 mar, 22:20, Alex Henderson<[email protected]>   wrote:
>>>>> +1 I didn't realise ResolveAll<>   didn't just return those components
>>>>> explicitly registered for that service.  I'm fine with the change, as
>>>>> it's
>>>>> deterministic/won't break anything I've got relying on that feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Jason
>>>>> Meckley<[email protected]>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I also thought Windsor only resolved all types explicitly registered.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> wouldn't have a problem with this change.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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].
>>> 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.
>
>

-- 
Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil

-- 
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.

Reply via email to