Yep, the one with the sample of async client calls with sync proxy. How do you like the idea. I know that implementation is ugly, but it's a proof of concept, it will have to be rebuilt. I also have to digg a little bit into DP to see how I could make it generate the async interface from the sync one (to generate something like IMyClientAsync from the example at runtime). I'm also thinking about how to best surface this options in the configuration (I think there should be an opt-in mechanism for this, to not introduce overhead for clients that don't want to use it).
Krzysztof Craig Neuwirt pisze: > I sure did. The one that discussed reading from config file for > registering clients and the async proxies, right? > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Krzysztof Koźmic > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Craig > Did you receive my email I sent you few days ago? > Krzysztof > > Craig Neuwirt pisze: >> To better support some of the scenarios users have requested, I >> generalized the extensions capabilities of the WCF Integration >> Facility to not be limited to WCF behaviors. The breaking change >> involves just the general renaming of Behavior to Extension >> >> e.g. >> >> * WcfBehaviorScope => WcfExtensionScope >> * AddBehaviors => AddExtensions >> >> An additional interface IServiceHostAware was introduced to >> extend the lifecycle events of the ServiceHost. >> >> cheers, >> craig >> >> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
