> Hi Hammet, Hiya, Sacha!
> I think this is ok. Like you say, as long as the > dependancies are satisfied. But somehow I'm thinking > it would be good to make this optional or specifically > declared using config/code attributes? > If the components are auto-started (after loading the > model fom config file), is there a way to control the > order of starting? Maybe just by initially using the > order of declaration in the config file? Yes, I've modified the AvalonComponentAttribute adding an Activation attribute. For now I'd like to keep the microkernel totally independent of external configuration, the usage of the container should be totally posible only with code. The idea is to build a specialized container on top of it to add the features like configuration, even overriding component configurations (logger, lifestyle) with the config file and so on. We aren't far away from this by now. Again, thanks for your feedback. Cheers, hammett > I still like the idea of implementing a DefaultKernel. > > Good luck with the refactoring. After you've done it I > can do some comparisons and this will give me an even > better idea of the system. I haven't made any patches > since I haven't made any really use of Castle/Avalon. > At this stage I'm just skirting around the edges > getting a feel for it as I go along. > > Great work so far though! It really is the only > framework/container I feel I could actually use. > > I'm still getting a feel about how to properly design > a system using the framework/container. > > Regards, > Sasha __________________________________________________________________________ Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela. AntiPop-up UOL - � gr�tis! http://antipopup.uol.com.br/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
