Improve MVC3,4 application performance,fix mvc4 BUG

[kamiff]

Ignore MVC view service injection check to Improve MVC3,4 performance
fix MVC4 project bug from M2 version

[sbohlen]

Can you elaborate a bit on this PR (and its sibling, #91)?

First, the commonality between the two: the exclusion of types that begin "ASP."; can you elaborate on the thinking behind this concept a bit? Can you help me understand the intent of returning NULL when the type-name begins with this string?

Secondly, the bug: can you elaborate on this as well? It looks as if we (somehow) used the wrong type in the wrong namespace for the dependency resolver implementation ... is that correct --??

[kamiff]

First，when I checkout the source code from branch "sprnet-generics" and compile, There are several compilation error occurred in Spring.Web.Mvc4.2010 project, because this project seems to use several nonexistent interface(System.Web.Http.Services.IDependencyResolver) After review of this interface presents in asp.net mvc5. So I copied the relevant code from the M2 branch to the project, then it compiles.

Then let me explain stuff starts with "ASP." "ASP." At the beginning when I use Spring.NET (v1.3.2) as a container for a site with high conccurrency, I found there are a lot of code blocks for compatibilities of elder .NET versions, including the ancient the 1.1 version, but my application is based on ASP.NET MVC3, so I take the risk to use Spring.NET 2.0 M2 release, and modified it to enhance performance of creation of objects. Most of which I think we can make to enhance the quality of performance is the place to let the Spring container ignored by the view types of services injections can bring almost 10 times the original performance improvements! For example the Razor type view (.cshtml), the view file will be dynamically compiled into ASP.XXX object exists in the application. So if some classes are in the ASP. namespace, I'll let ASP.MVC build-in engine to create it, other than Spring engine. ——so that we get better performance.

[sbohlen]

OK, that makes sense -- thanks for the explanation (and the PR).