Conversation
cejanen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, I apologize for request changes, but I just wanna you double check the solution as well. There are many similarities in all those typealiases for "factories" but some of the types are not very understandable - although it's async copy paste of existing.
I know we're adding new "feature" without breaking changes, at the same time we created async DI for exploring swift6 complete concurrency check really fast way, therefore I'm for double check.
…ependency-injection into feat/rob-async-init
ipek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very handy! I have just a few documentation and tests comments.
DanielCech
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@robha141 Kudos. Impressive work. Please consider the change in the folder structure - maybe we can put Sync and Async variants of code into separate subfolders. What do you think?
And maybe silly question. If I have the same dependency that I need in both sync and async contexts, should I have two registrations? Can we somehow unify the interface as @cernym46 suggested?
Co-authored-by: Filip Haškovec <filip.haskovec@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Filip Haškovec <filip.haskovec@gmail.com>
…cy-injection into feat/rob-async-init
I made the changes in the structure. Those changes are rather cosmetic but they allow to divide of synchronous, asynchronous, and common parts of the code. |
ipek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great job! I didn't find anything that would have effect on the usage. Just few naming/documentation notes and one nitpicking edgecase.
Co-authored-by: Filip Haškovec <filip.haskovec@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Filip Haškovec <filip.haskovec@gmail.com>
…cy-injection into feat/rob-async-init
Added new AsyncContainer, with async registration and resolution of dependencies.