I'll take a look today, but that makes good sense to me.
thanks,
craig
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:56 PM, John Simons <[email protected]>wrote:
> One more thing Craig,
>
> On the client side the following test is failing : (Paste in
> WcfClientFixture)
>
> [Test, ExpectedException(typeof(EndpointNotFoundException))]
> public void ThrowsEndPointNotFoundException()
> {
> Func<IWindsorContainer> createLocalContainer = () =>
> new WindsorContainer()
> .AddFacility<WcfFacility>(f => f.CloseTimeout =
> TimeSpan.Zero)
> .Register(
> Component.For<Operations>()
> .DependsOn(new { number = 42 })
> .ActAs(new DefaultServiceModel().AddEndpoints(
> WcfEndpoint.ForContract<IOperations>()
> .BoundTo(new NetTcpBinding {
> PortSharingEnabled = true })
> .At("net.tcp://localhost/Operations1"))
> )
> );
>
> windsorContainer.Register(
> Component.For<IOperationsEx>()
> .Named("operations")
> .ActAs(new DefaultClientModel
> {
> Endpoint = WcfEndpoint
> .BoundTo(new NetTcpBinding { PortSharingEnabled
> = true })
> .At("net.tcp://localhost/Operations2")
> .AddExtensions(new ChannelReconnectPolicy())
> })
> );
>
> IOperationsEx client;
>
> using (createLocalContainer())
> {
> client =
> windsorContainer.Resolve<IOperationsEx>("operations");
> client.Backup(new Dictionary<string, object>());
> }
> }
>
>
> The exception thrown is ComponentActivatorException but I think you should
> instead throw the inner exception, so that the test passes.
> What do you think ?
>
> This way makes it more natural and simple for the consumer.
>
> Cheers
> John
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 1 September, 2009 9:25:49 AM
> *Subject:* Re: WcfFacility policies
>
> 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
>>
>>
> ------------------------------
> Find local businesses and services in your area with Yahoo!7 Local. Get
> started<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/search/local/mailtagline/*http://local.yahoo.com.au>
> .
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
