About the build: I don't like the ideia of obligating everyone to have ruby + rake in order to build the tx stuff. Probably we will restore the msbuild and get rid of the rake scripts when we merge the changes on the master repo.
On the 3.5 matter: At least for me, we can drop de support for it. Cheers, Henry Conceição On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Henrik Feldt <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup, a merge it is. They are merged in my repository now. > > > > The rest in this letter is about the upcoming alpha. > > > > Docs: > > I have added docs to the wiki as well on my repo. > > > > Building: > > Both projects have been rewritten, based on the previous ideas. This > includes using rake for the build – using it makes me about 10 times as > productive when writing the scripts. > > > > Versioning: > > In the rake scripts I have set up build-number versioning like that > NHibernate uses, so that > > 100x is alpha > > 200x is beta > > 300x is rc > > 4000 is ga. > > > > So e.g., currently I’m building 2.9.9.11215 at 3 pm, or 2.9.9.1001 for the > first alpha. > > > > The versioning for private builds uses the day of the year and the hour as > the build number. > > > > Sadly: > > Right now I’m just working against .Net v4.0. There’s no real problem > re-targeting 3.5. > > > > Code contracts: > > I’ve done both with MS code contracts for good or bad, but only debug builds > have the contracts. In my opinion it’s nice for showing intent around > interfaces. The most prominently used part is that of the static > verification, the part which doesn’t compile into the assembly. I believe > they work very well with unit tests as well, as one only tests allowed > functionality as opposed to disallowed functionality that throws exception. > > > > People use the debug build with contract assertions or the release build > without any alterations. > > > > Alpha TODO: > > Finish build script for building nuspecs with lib and tools. Perhaps a > transform file for adding AutoTx and the new NHibernate Facility to a web > site. Test this out and release 2.9.9 (perhaps). Set up a build server for > the new rake scripts. Does castle have one that I can use for testing – > TeamCity? I can create its configs. > > > > Release 3.0 TODO File Transactions: > > I’m aiming to spend a few hours on the file transactions before release to > fully integrate it with ITxManager, but the non-file transaction parts seem > OK. > > > > Release 3.0 TODO Forking: > > There is also a bit of problems related to continuation passing when forking > dependent transactions through the new [Transaction(Fork=true)] > functionality as tasks are awaited on the finalizer thread if exceptions are > not observed on the main thread. > > > > Release 3.1 TODO Retry policies etc: > > This idea is something I’d like to investigate: possibly retrying failed > transactions through the transaction interceptor. Also, creating a > IHandlerSelector for choosing transient lifestyle components if in no > ambient transaction. > > > > Cheers > > Henrik > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Krzysztof Kozmic > Sent: den 15 november 2010 02:30 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Castle.Services.Transaction + Castle.Windsor? > > > > Henrik, > > What's the status of this? Did you go ahead with the merge? Do you still > plan to? > > From another department - would you care to have a look at the documentation > and expand it to fully cover all functionality of the facility? > http://stw.castleproject.org/Windsor.ATM-Facility.ashx > > Krzysztof > > On 23/09/2010 8:52 PM, Henrik Feldt wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > I’m considering merging the code of Castle.Services.Transaction with > Castle.Facilities.AutomaticTransactionManagement/AutoTX. This would > introduce a dependency on Castle.Windsor for Castle.Services.Transaction. > (Another way of saying it is that the IoC-container would be required for > using the transactions project, which it is not now. However, it could > simplify versioning/dll-management slightly). > > > > As of now it is merely a thought: please tell me what your opinions are on > whether to merge them or not! > > > > Kind regards, > > Henrik > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Castle Project Users" 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-users?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Castle Project Users" 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-users?hl=en. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
