Why are you doing that as a message module? It makes more sense to me to put it directly in the RSBF instead.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Mike Nichols <[email protected]>wrote: > > ok..i just implemented as an IMessageModule on the trunk > > On Jan 23, 6:11 am, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think that it is creating _transactional_ queues by default. > > The reason that it exists in this manner is quite simple. It reduce the > > number of things that you need to do to use RSB. You don't have to go and > > explicitly create the queue. > > It just happens. > > One less thing to do. > > > > I see no problem with moving the responsibility to Rhino Service Bus > > Facility, though. > > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Mike Nichols <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > I just committed some fixes to the FlatQueue implementation in RSB > > > 1. A #subscriptions queue is required as a sibling queue > > > 2. Initialization of queues in Transport is based on the strategy > > > > > One question though: We are currently only creating nontransactional > > > queues if they don't already exist. SHould we add a config option on > > > the facility to specify IsTransactional ? Or should the creation of a > > > queue even be in the Transport...it seems like a SRP violation to have > > > it in there and should just throw if it can't new() the queue. > > > Queue setup like creation, purging, and so on seems like it should be > > > the burden of the app code, not RSB. A simple static class could > > > provide these utilities ala PrepareQueues in sample. > > > > > mike > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" 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/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
