Ian Johnson

SetupMvc does essentially the same thing, uses a custom implementation of IControllerActivator the resolves the controller from DI.

Oh sorry I wasn’t clear SetupMvc does the similar thing as AddContrrollersAsServices. Both add custom activators AddMvc adds in the Mvc dependencies

This was a decent [article](https://andrewlock.net/controller-activation-and-dependency-injection-in-asp-net-core-mvc/) explaining the difference as it’s subtle. I honestly haven’t looked at their implementation but I’m guessing it’s going to be roughly the same as what...

You’ll get a very small performance improvement by using SetupMvc because it replaces the controller activator. The other thing it adds is the ability to use the http binding attributes...

Sorry should have been more clear it adds the ability to bind lower in the dependency graph. So something other than the controller could use [FromQuery]. Not supper useful but...

@jods4 thank you so much for taking a look at this, between work and family life I haven't been able to do any OSS development this year. My hope is...

> how do you usually proceed when a development in one library (this one) depends on a new release of Grace core? I will frequently build the package and store...

That's a good suggestion. Let me look at putting together a new package that's dependent on the only the hosting abstraction and call it Grace.Extensions.Hosting

I've checked in a new project, would you be able to try it from the nightly nuget feed? `https://ci.appveyor.com/nuget/grace-dependencyinjection-extensions-nightly` ``` using (var hosting = new HostBuilder().UseGrace().ConfigureContainer((context, scope) => { scope.Configure(c...

Looks like this wasn't related to the hosting only change rather it was something that was introduced in the most recent beta that just went out. Essentially the change was...