@rogeralsing, what prevents us from allowing system/context.ActorOf<ISomeInterface>() using DI internally instead of the context.DI().ActorOf<T>?
@rogeralsing I think that any DI scope which effectively takes away lifecycle management from the ActorSystem, are not supported. Because it would mean that an Actor could be disposed without the Actor system being aware of it, or being the one who actually starts the dispose. Which in turn would cause all kinds of wierd stuff. As far as i can tell.
But maybe you guys have some voodoo code to manage those scenario's.
@nvivo nothing. Just that when you do that with Actor types. They wont be initialized properly. I take you mean something like this? :
This message was deleted
what I mean is more the semantics than the implementation
imagine I have an actor that requires constructor parameters
today I'm required to create the props with DI or manually, and then pass to ActorOf
this creates 2 different ways to declare exactly the same thing
man.... personally I can explain things much better
I think I know what you mean
Your talking about implicit support for DI. So you don't have to do context.DI().ActorOf<IMyInterface>
and you can simply do this: context.ActorOf<IMyInterface>()