Since you seem to be a user of the facility, are there any other things you would like changed or added?
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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
