sure On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:18 PM, John Simons <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Craig, > > That's what I'm saying, I think you should use this as the default > implementation of IChannelActionPolicy and if the user wants they can > register another implementation with a lower ExecutionOrder so that > gets executed before. > What do you think? > > > > On Aug 31, 11:52 pm, Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are many ways to handle reconnection, so I didn't want to pick one > by > > default. > > I could probably use it as a default if none are specified. > > > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:39 PM, John Simons <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > I've noticed that the ChannelReconnectPolicy is not automatically > > > added to the facility. > > > Shouldn't this be an opt out instead ? > > > > > I would think that 9/10 you want the facility to handle the > > > CommunicationException automatically and recreate the channel. > > > > > Cheers > > > John > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
