Sam Covington

Why is this native movement ONLY for the client?

Where is a native server framework? All of the server frameworks that MS offers are managed, ASP.Net Webform, MVC, and on it goes.

How is it possible that native, which is only needed in a few cases on the client, but massively needed on the server where every cycle counts, is nonexistant?

I'm a bit confused. 

Microsoft strongly suggest building Metro Applications in HTML/JS, not XAML.

So the question is why should we use a depreciated product(even thought I may want to)?

Hi Mike,

Can you make the source code for this video available?

Thanks,

Sam...

Mike, this one was the eye opener for me.  Not so much about MEF, but on a whole raft of technologies coming out of Microsoft.

MEF, Unity, and a few other things are ALL solutions built around this simple concept... type catalogs!

While they all sit on this base, they set out to achieve different things, and solve problems in their particular domain.

At first my biggest confusion was which product to use, since MEF and Unity solved an overlapping set of problems, but I didn't see the commonality, which is they use type catalogs to provide a mapping of types to be delivered anywhere in your application.  Of course that's a simplified description of what they do, but at least I've resolved why they appear the same(at least in my warped mind).

Thanks!

I think you missed my point, it worked GREAT for me, but if I had seen this when I knew nothing about MEF, I don't think it would have been as effective.

I reference the pace with which you presented Unity.  I had never used or looked into Unity, and I got it clear and clean.

I have to admit, this is total opinion because I can't unlearn what I already knew about MEF, so the better judge would be someone fresh to the subject.

@Mike Kidder - While you may disagree, you provided no basis for that disagreement.  The only possible metric would be that you knew nothing about MEF, and got a good grasp of it here.  If that was the case, you should have stated it, and if that is the case, you would be the person with the superior view of the way it was presented.

@Whirily - Perhaps if you re-read my post you might have a better understanding of what I said.  Your assumption is totally off.

Too bad there wasn't a test at the end of the video, lol.

Thanks Mike.

There's an old statement in politics:  It's the ECONOMY STUPID!

In this case:  It's COMPOSITION STUPID!  Now I get it!

That's the value add, along with the sweetness of having an IOC in the process.  Glenn Block has stated this a lot, but I guess I read it, but didn't internalize it... now I have.

Thanks!

This was a great refresher for me, however, if I hadn't been playing with MEF for awhile, I can't see how a someone new to MEF could possibly follow this.

Mike, I have a different question.

I realize these are simple examples, but my question is why use MEF if I already have access to the types?  You have a reference to WordProcessor, etc., so why the extra code for MEF?

Even if the the assembly is delay loaded, and even if you need polymorphic text engines, you still have a reference to these items.  What "value add" do you get from MEF(which is my seminal question).

BTW, I do agree with Ben Hayat, you are a great teacher, I loved your series on Unity... awesome!