that it is not really worth it On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Matt Burton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
