<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Mike Hadlow</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/9e7becab41c0ed2b7cfffac36f77bdbb/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:03:35 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Making a Visual Studio Custom Project Type buildable</title><link>http://ashmind.disqus.com/making_a_visual_studio_custom_project_type_buildable/#comment-2506429</link><description>Thanks Andrey, it's always nice to be linked. Mike (code rant)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mike Hadlow</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:01:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Is this Better than Constructor Injection?</title><link>http://emadibrahim.disqus.com/is_this_better_than_constructor_injection/#comment-2005608</link><description>I don't like your property implementation at all. You now have an explicit dependency on the IoC container. Remember IoC is 90% about the IoC/DI pattern and only 10% about the mechanics of how your IoC container works. I've got applications that leverage an IoC container but the only place where the IoC container is referenced is on application startup. I think constructor injection makes perfect sense, rather that polluting a service implementation it's making explicit its dependencies.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mike Hadlow</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:03:35 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>