Correct - I used the wrong words - that's what I was thinking, just didn't come out that way. :) In my case the service that is responsible for provisioning a web application on a web server would live on that server - so that would be a physical unit of deployment.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > this is not regarding separation of concerns. > different services run at different places. > this is about being able to deploy independently > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Matt Burton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hmm. Alright - I guess I could see that... I'm coming at it from the >> standpoint of the giant single assembly that has everything and then >> selectively hosting from that. I guess in terms of enforcing >> separation of responsibilities it might be good to group them based on >> responsibility. Definitely food for thought... >> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Yes, that is what I am intending. An assembly per service, and a service >> > can >> > be hosted as a service >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Matt Burton <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Consumers it is. >> >> >> >> For the DefaultHost you can do that, yes - but can you do that for the >> >> Windows service that you provide (Rhino.ServiceBus.Host) - in the >> >> ExecutingOptions you can only specify the assembly name and then the >> >> DefaultHost does a check to ensure that there's only one bootstrapper >> >> type in the assembly. I could be missing something but that's what it >> >> looks like on the surface. >> >> >> >> Do you have an assembly per hosted service? It feels like that would >> >> get out of hand quickly... >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I name them consumers. >> >> > You can pass a bootstrapper type to the host, and the bootstrapper >> >> > can >> >> > override a method (configure container, iirc) to do the selection >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Matt Burton <[email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Quick question - I'm looking at the RSB host service and I'm >> >> >> wondering >> >> >> what the prescribed strategy is here for usage. What I've been doing >> >> >> up to this point in my spikes is using the remote app domain host >> >> >> with >> >> >> bootstrappers that implement the >> >> >> "IsTypeAcceptableForThisBootStrapper" >> >> >> method to filter based on the namespace I'm interested in for that >> >> >> particular host. This allows me to keep all my services in a single >> >> >> assembly, filtered by namespace. The host doesn't give this level of >> >> >> control, however, and seems to want a single assembly that will in >> >> >> turn contain a single bootstrapper class. I definitely prefer to >> >> >> have >> >> >> as few assemblies as possible. Would it be possible to add namespace >> >> >> filtering as an argument or something along those lines to the host? >> >> >> Or am I missing something altogether here? >> >> >> >> >> >> Also - in NSB there's the concept of message "handlers" - >> >> >> IMessageHandler<T> - in RSB we have ConsumerOf<T> - do you typically >> >> >> name your classes as consumers - "...Consumer" or are they handlers >> >> >> - >> >> >> "...Handler"? I know it's a minor point but someone was asking about >> >> >> it... >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
