Microsoft.FX.DI integration [Option 2] #286
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…vice registration.
Contributor
Author
|
Go with option 1. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Use Micorsoft DI framework to replace current Dictionary<,> based service registration.
This is basically identical to my previous #264. Compared to option 1 #285, this is a relatively conservative change. It's up to you to make a choice.
In this change ApiConfiguration has its service registration/resolve built upon MS.FX.DI, almost all public interfaces remain same.
There's 1 major breaking change:
Services or hook handlers can't be resolved before ApiConfiguraion committed.
Personally I like option 1 more, IMO it's cleaner, more componentized, and the building pattern mimics what's in ASP.NET MVC.