We are just evaluating this framework and really like what we see but are hesitant about picking up a dying technology.. any news?

Possible ExtensionDiscovery strategy implementations could be:
* NoExtensionDiscovery
* AssemblyExtensionDiscovery
* AutoExtensionDiscovery

with NoExtensionDiscovery as default.

IExtensionDiscovery interface would have a method GetExtensionTypes with a signature somehow like this:

IExtension[] GetExtensionTypes()
{
…
}

Code could look like this:

var settings = new NinjectSettings { ExtensionDiscovery = new AssemblyExtensionDiscovery().ByType().ByType() };
var kernel = new StandardKernel(settings, …);

Could be nice, no selector argument needed, extensible as such too.

I would vote for a mechanism that is simple and operates in medium trust environments — of course “simple” is subjective to some extent, but medium trust is not.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with specifying a naming convention for assemblies — and providing the ability to override that pattern in the kernel settings. I think that provides you a mechanism for easy assembly identification and eliminates the need for spinning up a separate app domain. And, yes, it places some responsibility back on the developer to not screw up and RTFM (or wiki page or whatever the case may be), but what’s wrong with that?