Hi,
Since Hammlet asked to move that discussion out of the leaders topic,
here we go.
For features I have two big ones so far, I'd like to see. The thing with
them is, however, that both require changes to other projects.
- First, The ability to resolve wcf proxies/ServiceHosts without having
to register those explicitly with Windsor, if they are registered with WCF.
For example, on the client, when I have defined my proxy in the config
file like this:
<client>
<endpoint address="http://localhost:27197/UsingWindsor.svc";
binding="basicHttpBinding"
contract="Castle.Facilities.WcfIntegration.Demo.UsingWindsorSvc.IAmUsingWindsor"
name="WSHttpBinding_IAmUsingWindsor">
</endpoint>
</client>
Why can't I do simply this [1]:
var windsorContainer = new WindsorContainer()
.AddFacility<WcfFacility>();
var wcfProxy =
windsorContainer.Resolve<IAmUsingWindsor>("WSHttpBinding_IAmUsingWindsor");
I know that I can use information from the config file with this [2]:
windsorContainer.Register(Component.For<IAmUsingWindsor>()
.Named("usingWindsor")
.ActAs(new DefaultClientModel()
{
Endpoint = WcfEndpoint
.FromConfiguration("WSHttpBinding_IAmUsingWindsor")
}));
But it feels like it's just repeating information I already have in the
config file. [1] Feels much more natural.
Now, I know that this would be impossible with current implementation of
MK, because I won't allow me to resolve component that were not
registered explicitly.
That's why I want to ask - Why not discuss about changing it. My
proposition is not to go quite as far as Unity, that will try to resolve
any type you ask of it.
I'm thinking about something in the middle.
Let's call it MetaComponentProvider for discussion's sake. The way I see
it, would go like this:
- You (WcfIntegrationFacility) register your MetaComponentResolver
(WcfConfigurationResolver) with the IKernel.
- When User asks for component (IAmUsingWindsor with name
"WSHttpBinding_IAmUsingWindsor") MK first tries to resolve it, if it's
explicitly registered
- If it's not MK asks MetaResolver if given those information (type and
name) it can provide the component.
- MetaResolver based on the information checks the config file and then,
if there is such service, it get's resolved just as any other component.
I know that it would require deep changes in the MK and it's just a
proposition so don't jump on me for that ;)
Second, The ability for calling AsyncPattern methods on a non-svcutil
proxy. I wrote about it some time ago
(http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thread/9250110e258ccdcd),
but the thread got widely ignored.
I already have some of the implementation working. I still need to write
runtime generation of async version of the service interface and more
complete version of IAsyncClient implementation.
Thoughts?
Krzysztof
Craig Neuwirt pisze:
> Nothing planned as of yet. Did you have anything in mind?
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Krzysztof Koźmic
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> While we're at it:
> is there a roadmap, especially for WCFIntegration? Any clear
> direction the project will evolve?
>
> Krzysztof
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Castle Project Development List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
