.net – Choosing between MEF and MAF (System.AddIn)

add-inmafmefnetsystem.addin

The Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF) and Managed AddIn Framework (MAF, aka System.AddIn) seem to accomplish very similar tasks. According to this Stack Overflow question, Is MEF a replacement for System.Addin?, you can even use both at the same time.

When would you choose to use one vs. the other? Under what circumstances would you choose to use both together?

Best Answer

I've been evaluating these options and here's the conclusion that I came to.

MAF is a true addon framework. You can separate your addons completely, even running them inside a separate app domain so that if an addon crashes, it won't take down your application. It also provides a very complete way of decoupling the addons from depending on anything but the contract you give them. In fact, you can versionize your contract adapters to provide backwards compatibility to old addons while you are upgrading the main App. While this sounds great, it comes with a heavy price you have to pay in order to cross appdomains. You pay this price in speed and also in the flexibility of the types that you can send back and forth.

MEF is more like dependency injection with some additional benefits such as discoverability and ... (drawing a blank on this one). The degree of isolation that MAF has is not present in MEF. They are two different frameworks for two different things.

This is the style that Microsoft tends to use in their examples.

It appears that the guidance in this area may have changed, as StyleCop now enforces the use of the C# specific aliases.

C# – the difference between const and readonly in C#

Apart from the apparent difference of

having to declare the value at the time of a definition for a const VS readonly values can be computed dynamically but need to be assigned before the constructor exits.. after that it is frozen.
const's are implicitly static. You use a ClassName.ConstantName notation to access them.

There is a subtle difference. Consider a class defined in AssemblyA.

public class Const_V_Readonly
{
  public const int I_CONST_VALUE = 2;
  public readonly int I_RO_VALUE;
  public Const_V_Readonly()
  {
     I_RO_VALUE = 3;
  }
}

AssemblyB references AssemblyA and uses these values in code. When this is compiled:

in the case of the const value, it is like a find-replace. The value 2 is 'baked into' the AssemblyB's IL. This means that if tomorrow I update I_CONST_VALUE to 20, AssemblyB would still have 2 till I recompile it.
in the case of the readonly value, it is like a ref to a memory location. The value is not baked into AssemblyB's IL. This means that if the memory location is updated, AssemblyB gets the new value without recompilation. So if I_RO_VALUE is updated to 30, you only need to build AssemblyA and all clients do not need to be recompiled.

So if you are confident that the value of the constant won't change, use a const.

public const int CM_IN_A_METER = 100;

But if you have a constant that may change (e.g. w.r.t. precision).. or when in doubt, use a readonly.

public readonly float PI = 3.14;

Update: Aku needs to get a mention because he pointed this out first. Also I need to plug where I learned this: Effective C# - Bill Wagner

Best Answer

Related Solutions

C# – the difference between String and string in C#

This is the style that Microsoft tends to use in their examples.

C# – the difference between const and readonly in C#

Related Topic