Victor, somehow you're right. If it's an internal implementation detail, it shouldn't be visible outside. And additional interfaces are visible outside. But is it my fault, or a problem with RSB design that it requires message handlers to implement additional, public interfaces? This is probably because it's easy to locate components in windsor container by their interface.. Strong windsor dependency is another issue, but it has already been discussed. I think it's easy to build applications around RSB - you accept everything RSB requires and then design your system accordingly. But it's much harder to use RSB as a service among others. Other service- buses have the same problems - they introduce unwanted dependencies, conventions and configuration methods. I hoped RSB is 'frictionless' so it should be easier to adopt. Dynproxy - it's not what I'd like to put my time to. Another dependency, another problems... And returning to my original questions - I think there's an error in RSB and it could be done better. For example, RSB could check all component interfaces and not only the one selected as service in windsor. Apart from that, I think now it's impossible to use xml config for component setup - isn't it? I'd like to see Ayende's point of view. Regards R
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
