Hi all,
I've got a DynamicProxy problem, but first the background of the problem is:
While we love Service Buses (SB) for passing messages around, for some
applications it's desirable to have RPC-like functionality. Effectively
achieving something close to WCF-like RPC but with the flexibility
Hi all,
I've been having a problem with serializing DynamicProxy IInvocation
instances. The background is:
We've been using service buses for a recent project and are enjoying the
functionality provided by such frameworks, however we're looking at
implementing RPC-like functionality for some of
);
}
Cheers for the support.
Rob
On Friday, 15 March 2013 04:37:56 UTC+1, Krzysztof Koźmic wrote:
Can you build a failing test that reproduces it?
Krzysztof Kozmic
sent from my phone
On 15 Mar 2013 10:30, Robert Turner wrote:
Hi all,
I've got a DynamicProxy problem, but first
look into it before I come back.
If someone else wants to have a look feel free
Krzysztof Kozmic
sent from my phone
On 15 Mar 2013 16:31, Robert Turner rob...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
The following snippet reproduces the bug:
void FailingTest()
{
var
Hi,
I'd like to use the nicely optimised target object method invocation
features of DynamicProxy instead of using the slow (but simple) reflection
MethodInfo.Invoke. There's also plenty of examples of using DynamicMethod
online to achieve a similar thing, but I'm already using Castle
Hi Krzysztof,
The whole scenario is to have an interface proxy to an object over some
message channel (wcf, message bus etc). Method/property calls would be
serialized and sent over the channel and invoked at the host end.
The client end is easy: I use InterfaceProxyWith*out*Target, intercept
Hi fellow Windsorers,
I've got an application where a particular component implementation is
provided externally (by an Activator), but I only want it to be destroyed
when the instance has been released the same number of times that it was
resolved. I'm wondering if there is a particular
anything like that
previously. From the old COM days, ref counting has been taken as a hard
approach to get right and may lead to many issues.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Robert Turner rob...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Hi fellow Windsorers,
I've got an application where a particular
, a viewer class (that extends BaseModel) can also be written
for generating view information.
Is the approach I came up with reasonable, or is the concept of what I'm
doing flawed?
Thanks,
Robert Turner
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Castle Project
I'd normally make it an explicit relationship something
like:
IHandlerSomeData, IHandlerobject
--
Krzysztof Kozmic
On Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 1:08 AM, Robert Turner wrote:
I am having problems using Windsor (ver 3.2.1) for the following IoC
scenario:
I have several classes that each
between what's an
argument and a dependency etc.
Input always appreciated.
Rob
On Friday, 2 August 2013 11:02:57 UTC+2, Robert Turner wrote:
Excuse lack of understanding, but what do you mean by make it an explicit
relationship something like: IHandlerSomeData, IHandlerobject?
On Thursday
11 matches
Mail list logo