Okay, just committed a big rafactoring on MsmqTransport. Mostly dealing with extracting classes and responsibilities out.I think that I absolutely do want to have separation from actually getting msgs from the queue in a consistent fashion and the way that we build the transport. Physical layer - which we are likely to reuse over and over again vs. fit to purpose.
I am afraid that the current commit invalidate the patch that you have, but I would still like to understand more about your thought process when building this. I am not sure that I understand the ned to create this explicit separation between the transport and teh management system. On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Mike Nichols <nichols.mik...@gmail.com>wrote: > > I introduced this so that I could simplify the interfaces for > ITransport and ISubscriptionStorage. This let me tear all instance > subscription handling out of msmq handling and understand how each > transport/storage implementation does their work. It also let me > simplify all interfaces. > How does this interface limit the sending of messages since it isn't > really exposed much publicly on the IServiceBus interface? It just > wraps the subscription implementation (Uri or Instance). > > > On Jan 17, 8:28 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > Okay, here are a few comments from reading the patch. > > > > Why change end point to ISubscription? > > The idea is that you can send a message whereever you want, not just to > > people you subscribe to. > > > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Mike Nichols <nichols.mik...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's in the files section on the rhinoTools list: > > > rsb_instance_sub_refactoring > > > > >http://rhino-tools-dev.googlegroups.com/web/rsb_instance_sub_refactor. > .. > > > > > On Jan 17, 2:51 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > > > Can you resend that patch? I just need to get an idea about the sort > of > > > > changes that you made. > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Mike Nichols < > nichols.mik...@gmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > ah just got this... > > > > > the last patch I submitted is that patch. i'll pull down all the > most > > > > > recent changes you made and redo it then forward the patch. > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 3:51 pm, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > Can you generate a patch for this? > > > > > > I find it really hard to understand zip files wihtout context > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Mike Nichols < > > > nichols.mik...@gmail.com > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > I just uploaded the zip. I started to get a GoGrid server > setup so > > > I > > > > > > > could test all this on 2008, but I haven't had time to finish > it. > > > > > > > Tests were passing (that I could run) since I compose both > Instance > > > > > > > and MSMQ implementations. > > > > > > > I will make the changes on the current copy if you look at it > and > > > see > > > > > > > if its worth it. > > > > > > > > > The changes you made should not affect this except that the > > > interface > > > > > > > are much simpler. I just treat InstanceSubscription as its own > > > > > > > implementation of ITransport and ISubscriptionStorage and > remove > > > all > > > > > > > traces of it from the msmq implementations. Introducing > > > > > > > "ISubscription" lets me do this. > > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 8:31 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Can you try to see how this works after the changes I made > > > recently? > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Mike Nichols < > > > > > nichols.mik...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In the patch I submitted (and havent had a chance to deal > with) > > > I > > > > > > > > > refactored Transport and SubscriptionSTorage completely so > that > > > I > > > > > > > > > could pull all InstanceSubscrption logic out of the Msmq > stuff > > > and > > > > > > > > > into its own Transport/Storage implementation. Then, I have > a > > > > > > > > > CompositeTransport and CompositeStorage that hides the > > > separation. > > > > > > > > > I still have a project with the refactoring there...you > wanna > > > see > > > > > it? > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 6:58 am, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Right now MsmqTransport is doing WAY too much.I would > like to > > > > > break > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > apart > > > > > > > > > > and get it into smaller pieces, each with a single > > > > > responsability. > > > > > > > > > > However, I can't really envision how to get there. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any ideas? > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to rhino-tools-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rhino-tools-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
