Well, there is one thing. A Silverlight version for the client side of the WcfFacility :)
I even created a suggestion in the castle voice - http://castle.uservoice.com/pages/16605-official-castle-project-feedback-forum/suggestions/304610-wcffacility-silverlight-version - people vote ;) I know that this is not going to be easy because you are dependant on Windsor, but it definitely would be really good to support. Cheers John On Sep 2, 1:34 am, Craig Neuwirt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.c...> > > . --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
