if u can, please up this sample... i realy need start in this subject. thanks
On 20 mar, 12:31, Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> wrote: > No real example. Just some unit tests to test with > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Gabriel Mancini de Campos < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Craig do you have this example ? > > > WCF+WINDSOR+RESTFULL ??? > > > On 3 fev, 12:20, Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Colin Jack <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Couple of issues I've observed. > > > > > The first was that I had my service class had constructor dependencies > > > > that I'd not registered, this was obviously silly of me but when > > > > debugging all I kept getting was 502s when trying to contact my REST > > > > resources (programatically or using Fiddler) and it took me a while to > > > > work out the reason. I'm thus thinking that an exception server side > > > > might have been cool, to help point people to the source of the > > > > problem. > > > > I have added the ability to open service hosts eagerly > > > > - wcfFacility.Services.OpenServiceHostsEagerly() for all services > > > - WcfServiceModel.OpenEagerly() for a specific service > > > > When you do this, the service hosts will be opened immediately upon > > service > > > registration regardless of whether dependencies are satisfied. You will > > > then > > > receive a FaultException<ExceptionDetail> if you communicate with a > > service > > > that has unresolved dependencies. The exception details will list the > > > unsatissfied > > > dependencies (make sure you have ServiceDebugBehavior with details turned > > > on). > > > > > Secondly since I'm building REST resources I'm not interested in the > > > > service interface that I would be with normal WCF. What I mean is that > > > > I'd be happy to apply the [ServiceContract] and [OperationContract] > > > > directly to my service class and not have it implement an interface > > > > that was tagged up with these attributes. If I do create the interface > > > > then the client will never use it anyway (because if I go down that > > > > path I'm back to RPC). So I'm wondering if you believe adding better > > > > support for this use case is possible? > > > > Can you share with me a REST example using this --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
