For DP most tests that fail are related to generating strongly named assemblies, soomething i should can be dealt with very easily - disallow it.
About Windsor Sl support, we should get Davy Brion involved. AFAIR he's expressed interest in helping with it. he may be able to help with doing the list of what needs to be done. Another issue altogether is keeping full-.NET sln files and SL.sln files in sync. Jono was looking at generating the latter from the former with xslt but I don't know if he found it feasable. Krzysztof W dniu 2 września 2009 11:17 użytkownik John Simons <[email protected]> napisał: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
