using the ProxyMixIns doesnt seem to work
here is the current Code
i am trying to implement the following:
return new WindsorContainer()
.AddFacility<WcfFacility>()
.Register(
Component.For<IServiceBehavior>().Instance(metadata),
Component.For<IServiceBehavior>().Instance(debug),
//Component
// .For<IBlogServiceAlternate>()
// .ImplementedBy<AlternateBlogService>()
// .LifeStyle.Transient,
Component
.For<IBlogService, IBlogServiceAlternate>()
.ImplementedBy<DefaultBlogService>()
.Named("blogService")
.LifeStyle.Transient
.ActAs(new DefaultServiceModel().Hosted()
.AddBaseAddresses("http://localhost:50388/
BlogService.svc")
.AddEndpoints(WcfEndpoint.ForContract(typeof(IBlogService)).BoundTo(new
BasicHttpBinding()).At("/BlogService"),
WcfEndpoint.ForContract(typeof(IBlogServiceAlternate)).BoundTo(new
BasicHttpBinding()).At("/BlogServiceAlternate"))),
Component
.For<ILogger>()
.ImplementedBy<DefaultLogger>()
.LifeStyle.Transient
);
this code works gr8, but i want that IBlogService will be Implemented
By DefaultBlogService
and IBlogServiceAlternate will be Implemented by BlogServiceAlternate
i tried playing around with :
Proxy.MixIns(m => m.Service<IBlogServiceAlternate>)
but the thing i cant get the Service WSDL to add the new Interface.
maybe someone tried using Interceptors for doing it?
2010/8/29 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]>
> I'm not sure if it's updated already, check the version:
>
> http://builds.castleproject.org/viewLog.html?buildId=7085&buildTypeId=bt102&tab=artifacts
>
>
>
> On 29/08/2010 11:27 PM, barroei wrote:
>
>> oh, ok, that is one i missed :-)
>>
>> tell me is there a built on WCFIntegration.Dll that support 2.5
>> version
>> cause if i remove the MicroKernel Dll it says that :
>>
>> The type 'Castle.MicroKernel.Facilities.AbstractFacility' is defined
>> in an assembly that is not referenced. You must add a reference to
>> assembly 'Castle.MicroKernel, Version=1.0.3.0, Culture=neutral,
>> PublicKeyToken=407dd0808d44fbdc'.
>>
>> On Aug 29, 4:17 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes but it won't be dynamic. It has to implement interfaces it
>>> exposes, and a type can't gain an interface dynamically.
>>>
>>> On 29/08/2010 11:08 PM, barroei wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> i can have the implementaion class also as a container class
>>>> On Aug 29, 4:00 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic<[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I forgot to add you need version 2.5 to get that Mixin syntax.
>>>>> Yes you can have one implementation that forwards to other
>>>>> implementation but I thought you mentioned you wanted this to be
>>>>> dynamic...
>>>>> On 29/08/2010 10:58 PM, barroei wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> i cant get the damn syntax for the MixIn,
>>>>>> i had in mind another idea, to have a single Implenetation Class, that
>>>>>> has dependencies to all
>>>>>> other Implementation classes.
>>>>>> that should be easier to implement wont you think?
>>>>>> On Aug 29, 3:48 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic<[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How else would you want to do it than via dynamic proxy? Again -
>>>>>>> container aside.
>>>>>>> On 29/08/2010 10:47 PM, barroei wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didnt try the proxy option yet.
>>>>>>>> but will it work with more then 2 interfaces?
>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 3:40 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic<[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well what I think might work, is registering all the pieces
>>>>>>>>> separately
>>>>>>>>> and then picking one of them as the host and mixing in all the
>>>>>>>>> remaining
>>>>>>>>> ones.
>>>>>>>>> container.Register(
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Component.For<IFirst>().ImplementedBy<First>().Proxy.MixIns(m =>
>>>>>>>>> m.Service<ISecond>()),
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Component.For<ISecond>().ImplementedBy<Second>());
>>>>>>>>> This is the idea, but I'm not sure how DynamicProxy will handle all
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> WCF attributes.
>>>>>>>>> On 29/08/2010 10:34 PM, barroei wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> yep,
>>>>>>>>>> you got exactly the idea :-)
>>>>>>>>>> the thing is building it is abit complex since i cant get the
>>>>>>>>>> howto
>>>>>>>>>> build the damn thing.
>>>>>>>>>> this is the first IOC that seems todo so, very close to what
>>>>>>>>>> Spring .NET does.
>>>>>>>>>> but still, there is something missing, and i cant get the damn
>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>> to work.
>>>>>>>>>> i have tried multiple overrides to try to use the current
>>>>>>>>>> registration
>>>>>>>>>> model, but it just doesnt add up.
>>>>>>>>>> i can download the sources and try to fix it, but i think i am
>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> and it can be done in the current registration model.
>>>>>>>>>> i just cant figure out the how...
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 3:04 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic<[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ah I think I vaguely begin to see what you're trying to do
>>>>>>>>>>> so you want an umbrella object that would implement multiple
>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces
>>>>>>>>>>> and contain multiple other obects that each implement one of
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces and then route calls to each interface to its
>>>>>>>>>>> respective
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation object and on top of that expose everything as WCF
>>>>>>>>>>> service?
>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/08/2010 9:52 PM, barroei wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> do u have google talk ? or msn? it will be much easier...
>>>>>>>>>>>> the general idea is to make a dynamic multi endpoint WCF service
>>>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>>>> IIS
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning i want the service to be able to load Interface
>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamicly as i
>>>>>>>>>>>> am doing if i set a single Interface.
>>>>>>>>>>>> but i would also like to make it so that the Interface and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Implementation are built by differant users
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning that every user that will built an Interface will also
>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>> his very own Implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> and via configuration i will have the service register them.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2:48 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic<[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we step back a little?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are you trying to do? Container aside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/08/2010 9:41 PM, barroei wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why doesnt it make sense?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i want to make the entire service generic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add Interfaces dynamicaly and add the Implementation class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attached to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without touching the once that are already registered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there must be an option to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is there an option to tell the Implementation class to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another interface ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and load the interface implementation as a dependency class?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2:19 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This doesn't make any sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sent from my HTC Desire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29/08/2010 9:16 PM, "barroei"<[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i cant use different names.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its the same service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i want it to have multiple interfaces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning multiple servicecontracts on the same service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i can easily do it if implement all interfaces by the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but i want it to be generic and have an implementation class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 10:05 am, Ayende Rahien<[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need different names
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:49 AM, barroei<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hello.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i am tr...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]<castle-project-users%[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <castle-project-users%2Bun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <castle-project-users%2bun[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en.-Hidequoted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Castle Project Users" gro...- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>
> --
> 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]<castle-project-users%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en.
>
>
--
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.
