PureBasic Forums - English

As someone consider to be above average intelligence and educated beyond degree level, I sometime berate myself for using BASIC. Then I read something this and get a warm smug feeling that I tend not to jump on programming bandwagons...

Castle Container provides two implementations of Inversion of Control containers : MicroKernel and Windsor.

The MicroKernel concern is to offer an extensible inversion of control container core. The Windsor concern is to offer a facade to the kernel and deal with external configuration, proxies and profiles.

- MicroKernel is a simple implementation of the core of an inversion of control container. It is intended to be only a kernel thus no built-in support for external configuration is provided, for instance. The MicroKernel usage is simple. You only need to add components and it will inspect the components dependencies and properties and try to satisfy them, whenever is possible. In other words, the kernel will auto-wire the components.

- Windsor Container aggregates the MicroKernel exposing a friendly interface and providing the subsystems for external configurations and others common helpers.
The Windsor container provides capabilites to make things easier, like external configuration from XML files or from the AppDomain related configuration file.

The Windsor Container being where the British Royal family lives sometimes? Or am I misdriven by the general context of your quote?

I should have added "...even though I can't spell"

It's a .net thing. See here for more info.

Erm, can somebody translate that text into English please

> can somebody translate that text into English

Exactly dmoc's point.

Basically Spring for .Net.

http://www.springframework.com/
http://www.castleproject.org/home/

Martin Fowler gives the best right up of what the Inversion of Control thing is:

http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html

Its easy to scoff, but this stuff is making life easier for a lot of programmers.

(imho) that's rubbish, anything that over complicates itself to and degree no matter how sublittle and small will end up in a doomed failure, in the end.. the question is not matter of if, but when.

take this for example; as new programmers come out of the generations of humanity to learn there skills, they'd bump into more and more complicated things written by there fathers of programming the generation ahead of them, while some progress and learn off this complicated hooraa buzz word crap, and then add to that complex buzz word crap themselfs, the next generation after them as to do the same stuggel to learn, and so on, eventually you'll get to a state where it's just to hard to program and everyone gives up on it, no one programs anymore and only big corperations do the programming, handing out snips of stuff to programmers that don't know what there doing, they'd just be mindless robots following a set of rules they don't understand either it's purpose or goal.

or another point, LINUX!

if you follow that logic to it's conclusion, you could end up with a large corperation building the next nuclear bomb, and the programmer would never know he was the one that wrote the code for the guidance system, after all he was told to make a function just to calculate longditude and latitude faster.

Hello dmoc and Inner.

Dont take offense, but I think you should restrain your comments from things you don't know or can't understand. You won't see me saying things about airplane engineering.

Inversion of Control, when not overused, can benefit programmers and projects. If you can't see the benefits, well, I can live with that

Cheers,
hammett

Inner,

Inversion of Control (IOC) isn't that complicated, it's just a buzzword given to something that was already being done.

Windows, for example, uses IOC. When you create a window, it is controlled by the operating system.

In the old days, programming Dos, the program was in full control and had to take care of every detail. Displaying the cursor, displaying fields, handling keystrokes.

The program was in control, telling the operating system what to do.

Now windows takes care of all of that. Windows controls the window and all its controls, passing messages to you when your action is required.

The operating system is in control, telling the program when something has to be done.

So you see, the control has been inverted. Hence inversion of control.

Dependancy injection is another thing that frameworks like Spring or Castle does which is something that we PBers have taken for granted for a long time.

Without DI java programmers have to explicitly import every single feature they want to use. Need a linked list, then you must put Import Java.util.Vector at the top of your code.

With dependancy injection various features are registered with the framework. Then the programmer requests what he wants, and the framework does all the hard work of figuring out how to satisfy that request.

When the Purebasic compiler analyses our code and works out exactly which libraries will need to be linked to produce the executable, that is a form of Dependancy Injection.

These are good things that make the programmers life easier.

Yes, buzzwords are nasty, but that doesn't invalidate the ideas behind them.

First of all I did not criticise anyone or any technique. If anything I having fun showing forum members a bit of total gobble-de-gook I came across. But then the serious point: 99% of the time I can dip into any computer related topic and get a fair idea of what general area it is related to, what it is specifically addressing and what the impact/implications is/are. This practically threw me. If you blank out "kernel", "XML", "configuration" you may see my point (or maybe you won't, whatever). Remember also that this is an RSS feed I subscribe to so I know it's .net related, I know it aims to provide some additional benefit to coders (an axiom no?) but the terminology used leaves you stunned (well me at least).

@hammett3: did you join the forum just to make that post? Are you involved with the stuff or maybe the originator of the text I refer to? Answer these and we can discuss but if you only posted to tell us to keep our noses out of stuff we don't "understand" then yes, I do take offense! Read on...

@GedB: thanks for the explanation, seriously and sincerely. However, now I am convinced this really is buzzwords-on-top-buzzwords type crap. While I am all for creating new terminology to identify and focus on important aspects of a system or design, this clearly refers to "event-driven" and/or "callbacks" and "object broking". I see nothing new.

hammett3 : I can't see the benify because it discribed in an random set of words that mean nothing.

I'm with dmoc , and just before it all starts.. I take custody of me