> Ok, I see. My point is that is that this distinction has nothing to do
> with paranoia but simply with the fact that internal classes are
> treated differently. Take FxCop for example - there are rules that are
> validated differently whether the class is internal or public (like a
> method/parameter/constant etc. never used on an internal class is
> obsolete what cannot be said for a public class). This is just one
> example of a number of similar points that make me believe that it
> does make a difference whether you implement something internal or
> public besides wanting to hide anything (which is useless because of
> refelction anyway). So my opinion is still that it would make sense to
> include internals in the SM functionality.
> But I take your hint about the InternalsVisibleToAttribute. I will try
> this out and probably this will already be enough to do the job as I
> wish.
> Kind regards
> Sandro
> On 13 Apr., 17:36, "Jeremy D. Miller" <jeremydmil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If you really want to, you can always get around the issue by using this:
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.runtime.compilerservic...
> > I don't see the pull request anywhere in GitHub, but regardless, my very long
> > standing policy has been against using anything but public types and public
> > constructors. Mostly because of the performance issue, partly because of how
> > much architectural work it would take to make that change, and my feeling that
> > it adds no real value. I'm not particularly a believer in paranoid scoping.
> > That being said, SM itself is extensible. You could just use your own Instance
> > subclass that can build internal classes thru reflection if you want.
> > Jeremy D. Miller
> > The Shade Tree Developer
> > jeremydmil...@yahoo.com
> > ________________________________
> > From: srudin <goo...@sandrorudin.net>
> > To: structuremap-users <structuremap-users@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Fri, April 13, 2012 10:28:23 AM
> > Subject: [sm-users] Instantiate public objects
> > I was using a customized 2.6.1 version and have now updated to the
> > 2.6.3 NuGet package. The reason for using a customized version was
> > that I wanted to instantiate internal classes and not only public
> > classes - I have posted this request as well as the required code
> > changes a long time ago. I was quite disappointed to see that this
> > change has not been introduced into the 2.6.3 version so I would like
> > to ask if this was on purpose or if my request got lost somehow?
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "structuremap-users" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to structuremap-users@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > structuremap-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/structuremap-users?hl=en.
