Unity + EntLib = ?

re: Unity + EntLib = ?

Joakim E — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:25:31 GMT

Another thing I wonder is the performance impact of using Unity in the ent lib. I doubt doing an operation like

"ILogger logger = unityContainer.Get<ILogger>();"

every now and then would be a performance gain.

Would love to hear about some performance numbers. So they dont integrate Unity just for the sake of it and it gets A) Lot slower B) Takes a lot of time that they could do better things with

re: Unity + EntLib = ?

Casey — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:06:01 GMT

I don;t think you need to worry about performance, it should be minimal if it is half as efficient as Windsor, and possibly even more performant (as Windsor deals with lifestyles).

As far as the EntLib goes though ... I think they may be missing the point ...

An IoC container (linke Unity or Windsor or StructureMap) is there to allow dependencies to be broken, if the EntLib components have depenedenecies that need to be broken , then all is well - but the reality is that within each block, the dependencies probably may as well be there.

Between the blocks is another matter - I should be able to use any one block without any of the others, at the moment I really can't ... with a good IoC implementation, I should be able to use each of them, or any combination of them and my own components as I see fit.

I think this may be a case of MS again copying something from the community, not neccessarily doing it any better, and missing the point of it in the first place. After all - there isn;t much you can do that Windsor, StructureMap or Spring don't already do, the only thing you can do is apply the DI pattern better.

Unity Workshop

MichaelD!'s Tech Blog — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:41:04 GMT

Awww jyea! I'm officially slated a spot in the Unity Workshop announced earlier this week. This will

re: Unity + EntLib = ?

tomholl — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:19:10 GMT

Casey - in what way are you unable to use one block without using others? All of the cross-block dependencies are factored into optional pluggable providers.

Again, I believe a good IoC container would improve the internal architecture to support this, but I'm not sure what benefits this would provide to the average user.

re: Unity + EntLib = ?

FrancoisTanguay — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:00:18 GMT

I'll be at the workshop, flying all the way down from Montreal!!!

I think Unity is a lot more than just a way to ease code behing the different blocks of EntLib as it is right now. It is essentially a new block based on some sample container from OB2.0.

What will it give? Well probably the same benefits as any other IoC container... + potential larger buy-in from the community.

I really look forward to unity as I've been playing with OB2.0 for a while now. It is true that I don't really care whether the implementation behing Logger.Write is simplified or not per se.

However, I always felt that Config Data + Designers + Assemblers + Factory were a bit overwhelming when came time to present to end-users.

Also, I believe that simplifying the architecture might generate more contrib on EntLibContrib as it will become easier to extend/use.

re: Unity + EntLib = ?

Casey — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:27:33 GMT

>>>in what way are you unable to use one block without using others? All of the cross-block dependencies are factored into optional pluggable providers.<<

Well the last time I looked, the dependencies were still there - though that was pre-3.0 ... however, even the Provider pattern that MS use/advocate isn't exactly a 'good' seperation ... it was/is overly complex and over specified... and there Unity could certainly help.