I agree SL support is very important and I would be happy to help with whatever needs to be done to support it.
But first we need to sort out all the dependencies: - DP2 currently 7 tests failing in build server; - Windsor Silverlight version - I'm not too sure what needs to be done here, maybe you can put a list together of what needs to be done for Windsor to support Silverlight; Cheers John On Sep 2, 4:53 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > we would really welcome your help :) > > The SL support is getting more and more important for more and more > people so putting some work in that would certainly be a good idea > > 2009/9/1 John Simons <[email protected]>: > > > > > It would be good to support IParameterInspector via Windsor. > > So that we don't have to write a IOperationBehavior just to add the > > IParameterInspector. > > Eg. > > public class AuditBehavior : IOperationBehavior > > { > > private readonly ILogger logger; > > > public AuditBehavior(ILogger logger) > > { > > this.logger = logger; > > } > > > /// <inheritdoc/> > > public void Validate(OperationDescription > > operationDescription) > > { > > > } > > > /// <inheritdoc/> > > public void ApplyDispatchBehavior(OperationDescription > > operationDescription, DispatchOperation dispatchOperation) > > { > > dispatchOperation.ParameterInspectors.Add(new > > AuditingInspector > > (logger)); > > } > > > /// <inheritdoc/> > > public void ApplyClientBehavior(OperationDescription > > operationDescription, ClientOperation clientOperation) > > { > > > } > > > /// <inheritdoc/> > > public void AddBindingParameters(OperationDescription > > operationDescription, BindingParameterCollection bindingParameters) > > { > > > } > > } > > > The class above only exists because there is no other way to register > > IParameterInspectors. > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
