Which, it's not really worth it or the abstraction concept? On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > That was my thinking. > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Matt Burton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> That's what I was considering for the implementation of this - >> unfortunately it only provides a collection of methods to retrieve >> component instances from the container, as it is a service locator. >> There would have to be something else that wires up all the correct >> components to use in RSB which would be unique per supported container >> (Windsor, Autofac, etc...) and to me that seems like an awful lot of >> duplication. Per my last email we'd probably be better off looking at >> creating an abstraction perhaps over CommonServiceLocator that allowed >> for component registration as well. This would be easy to do for the >> simple use case of "register this concrete class for this interface" >> but when you start dealing with the edge cases, like dealing with >> dependencies for the component registrations, it starts getting messy. >> NSB has an abstraction like this and I wrestled for quite a bit trying >> to implement an Autofac adapter for it. I'll think about it some >> more...could be doable, but in the end I don't know how much value it >> could really provide. >> >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Simone Busoli <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Have you seen CommonServiceLocator? Would it fit? >> > >> > 2009/4/4, Matt Burton <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> Excellent - great stuff - congrats >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> Work is now committed on the trunk. >> >>> Fully integrated with RSB now. >> >>> Need to do build scripts next. >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Matt Burton <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> > doesn't really work, think long running apps :-) >> >>>> > we have to have this run periodically. >> >>>> >> >>>> True, some sort of scavenging process. Hmm...well, if the goal is to >> >>>> keep it in proc you're pretty much stuck with a thread on a timer, >> >>>> no? >> >>>> You could write an external process to manage it but then you've >> >>>> introduced another moving part :( >> >>>> >> >>>> > In all honestly, I am not sure how feasible this is. I don't mind >> >>>> > that, >> >>>> > as >> >>>> > long as someone else does it :) >> >>>> > It is just that I am afraid about the amount of work that is >> >>>> > involved. >> >>>> > If you will look at RSB now it is just a set of small components >> >>>> > that >> >>>> > are >> >>>> > being brought together by the facilities that bind them. >> >>>> >> >>>> Right - that's what I figured - basically what we'd be looking at is >> >>>> writing a custom configuration section that's independent of >> >>>> facilities in Castle. I understand that this flies in the face of the >> >>>> benefits of facilities, but it'll be required in this case. Not that >> >>>> hard to write, either...just a pain in the butt compared to creating >> >>>> a >> >>>> facility. But do it once and done. Then introduce the ServiceLocator >> >>>> to do DI. I did notice a number of places in the codebase where >> >>>> Windsor / Microkernel is being accessed pretty deep in the bowels, >> >>>> but >> >>>> hopefully those can be worked around. I can take a look at it further >> >>>> this weekend to see how feasible all this really is. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> > inline >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Matt Burton <[email protected]> >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> LOL - kind of glossed over that part, didn't I? >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Take 2: what jumps out at me first is based on config, a method >> >>>> >> that >> >>>> >> gets called during dispose and recovery. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > doesn't really work, think long running apps :-) >> >>>> > we have to have this run periodically. >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > Yes, a lot of the complexity goes away completely. It is not >> >>>> >> > _just_ >> >>>> >> > ITransport, we also need to implement ISubscriptionStorage, this >> >>>> >> > is >> >>>> >> > what >> >>>> >> > I >> >>>> >> > am doing now. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Right. And then there's the whole ServiceLocator refactoring too, >> >>>> >> right? Yeah, I know the drill - send you a patch... :) In all >> >>>> >> seriousness, would you consider a transition like that? Or at >> >>>> >> least >> >>>> >> some other abstraction that would allow folks to plug in other IoC >> >>>> >> containers? >> >>>> > >> >>>> > In all honestly, I am not sure how feasible this is. I don't mind >> >>>> > that, >> >>>> > as >> >>>> > long as someone else does it :) >> >>>> > It is just that I am afraid about the amount of work that is >> >>>> > involved. >> >>>> > If you will look at RSB now it is just a set of small components >> >>>> > that >> >>>> > are >> >>>> > being brought together by the facilities that bind them. >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > Integrating everything is going to be... interesting, shall we >> >>>> >> > say? >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Indeed - that's why I'm thinking a new implementation that does >> >>>> >> away >> >>>> >> with the assumptions and restrictions imposed by MSMQ as a >> >>>> >> transport >> >>>> >> might be warranted. Right - couple that with the PHT for >> >>>> >> subscription >> >>>> >> storage and saga state storage and you've got a nice little simple >> >>>> >> framework with minimal dependencies. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> >> >>>> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> > inline >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Matt Burton >> >>>> >> > <[email protected]> >> >>>> >> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > Yeah, we probably need both. >> >>>> >> >> > The problem is deciding where to implement this. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> QueueManager configuration DSL? Or even a parameter object >> >>>> >> >> passed >> >>>> >> >> into >> >>>> >> >> the ctor that has Endpoint, Path, MaxNumberOfMessagesToRetain, >> >>>> >> >> TimeToRetainMessages as properties - something along those >> >>>> >> >> lines? >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > Um, no. The issue is where to implement the _cleanup_ logic. :-) >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > That would still work, actually. >> >>>> >> >> > If your service isn't there, the message will be queued at >> >>>> >> >> > the >> >>>> >> >> > source >> >>>> >> >> > until >> >>>> >> >> [snip] >> >>>> >> >> > So you still get the same (very important) quality. >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> SOLD :) >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Thinking about a service bus implementation on top of this you >> >>>> >> >> could >> >>>> >> >> make really a lightweight framework - a lot of the complexity >> >>>> >> >> in >> >>>> >> >> RSB >> >>>> >> >> goes away. (not that there was that much to begin with in >> >>>> >> >> comparison >> >>>> >> >> to NSB / MT :) Is it really as simple as an ITransport >> >>>> >> >> implementation? >> >>>> >> >> I guess I'm geared towards small, lightweight, single purpose >> >>>> >> >> tools >> >>>> >> >> these days (Autofac, AutoMapper, etc...) - a really simple >> >>>> >> >> framework >> >>>> >> >> built directly on top of RQ seems like a winner to me. (of >> >>>> >> >> course >> >>>> >> >> using ServiceLocator for IoC so I can use Autofac ;) Just my >> >>>> >> >> thoughts... >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > Yes, a lot of the complexity goes away completely. It is not >> >>>> >> > _just_ >> >>>> >> > ITransport, we also need to implement ISubscriptionStorage, this >> >>>> >> > is >> >>>> >> > what >> >>>> >> > I >> >>>> >> > am doing now. >> >>>> >> > I am implementing that on the PHT, so that is pretty easy. >> >>>> >> > Integrating everything is going to be... interesting, shall we >> >>>> >> > say? >> >>>> >> > > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Inviato dal mio dispositivo mobile >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
