http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660@Simone, This is optional, but I like the syntax. Nate's second suggestion is possible today. About other IoC, no idea, frankly. http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment14http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment14Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:31:18 GMTAs other observed I think that transparently providing this behavior might be misleading. I'd opt for a more explicit syntax like the one suggested by Nate. BTW, do you know how other IoC containers deal with this? http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment13http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment13Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:41:47 GMTI've actually run into this exact problem in the past. The work around I used was to make the constructor for each of the components in the chain take a simple Object, rather than the Interface type, and then do a cast. This solution looks great! I would prefer something a little more explicit though in case you needed to select a specific service implementation later. Maybe the <chain> syntax mentioned earlier. Or even, just use the first XML. In my experience Windsor would through a cycle dependency exception in that situation as well. Great stuff! http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment12http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment12Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:08:28 GMTGreat work! This is exactly what I was looking for! http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment11http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment11Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:18:46 GMT@Nate, If you got to this point, you really should split the configuration to separate files, and you can always override the default behavior http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment10http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment10Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:09:03 GMTI would agree that while this is a pretty clean answer, it seems like there should be more explicit indication that it's a chain -- either: <chain> <component .../> <component .../> </chain> Or: <component chain="A" .../> <component chain="A" .../> Otherwise, if your schema gets very complex, it might be difficult to discern which components are being resolved. For example, if you have: <component service="IService" type="ServiceImpl1"/> <component service="IAnotherService" type="FooImpl"/> // ...another 50 component definitions... <component service="IService" type="ServiceImpl2"/> Wouldn't the second "chained" request for IService result in SerivceImpl2? This seems like it could be counter-intuitive... http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment9http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment9Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:41:14 GMT Simone, It would throw, unless you would instruct it to seek a specific one, that is why you have all the <finder>${db_finder}</finder> elements. http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment8http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment8Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:01:43 GMThttp://www.answers.com/responsibility&r=67 http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment7http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment7Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:36:09 GMTThat's interesting, Ayende. Could you explain a little better what happened with the former approach? You say that a dependency cycle exception was thrown, was it handled by Windsor or what? http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment6http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment6Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:10:27 GMTHmm just to add. I like to document my solution. If the code/xml doesn't speak for itself I tend to add comments. What I do in the case of a responsability chain is. <!-- Begin ABC chain --> <component.../> <!-- End ABC chain --> I'm not sure if there can be found a better way to document the chain with name etc... I was thinking about something like this... <componentChain> <component.../> </componentChain> But now mentioning this, I don't think this solution is desirable. http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment5http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment5Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:07:10 GMT@Mark, XML has _strict_ ordering. I don't follow the rest. http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment4http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment4Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:46:21 GMTAlex, of course :-D http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment3http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment3Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:45:12 GMTHmm, sounds nice. But at the end, normally there is no ordering in XML-Elements is there? So the ordering is implicit. I think this will work, but maybe these chains should be grouped in a way that the chains can be found easyly. http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment2http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment2Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:58:15 GMTLove it, that's so much easier to work with then the previous approach :) is it in the trunk already? http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment1http://ayende.com/2540/windsor-decorators-and-chains-of-responsabilityes-oh-yeah#comment1Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:43:06 GMT