Ok that is much better. I fallen about that branch right after ive send
the message.
What you can do is simply. Make an announcement about the change and
what breaking changes are there. Then give the people an ultimatum to
answer (in example 7 days) and if no one have a reason against it, do
the merge.
Since i mainly interested in using ESB with Autofac, where can i help
you with the Autofac parts?
-Steve
On 14.04.2011 23:50, Corey Kaylor wrote:
Sounds very similar to the work I did as well, including configuration
changes, etc. Did you by chance look at the branch I have on github? My only
reservation to merging into master is that certain people who don't seem to
have an opinion will likely have one after the fact and I don't really have
a lot of free time on my hands at the moment. I would love to close this out
though, we've been using StructureMap with RSB for some time now and it's
working out well. I also have a 80% implemented Autofac container as well.
https://github.com/hibernating-rhinos/rhino-esb/tree/servicelocator
Thoughts?
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Steve Wagner<li...@lanwin.de> wrote:
Ok lets bring this a bit forward!
https://github.com/lanwin/rhino-esb
Ive created a fork and extracted all Windsor specific stuff to an
Rhino.ServiceBus.Windsor assembly. Then I've replaced all usages of the
Kernel in the core parts with an IContainerAdapter interface and added an
impl of it to the Rhino.ServiceBus.Windsor. This assembly contains mostly
configuration,facilities and hosts.
It works, all tests pass and the Starbucks example runs. The only problem
is that the Starbucks.Tests dont run because it dose not Shadowcopy both
assemblies. Maybe someone else has an idea why?!?
If we now move the common functionality of the configuration,facilities and
hosts to more abstract base classes, we have a pretty good extension point
for using another container. Also Windsor could stay the main container of
RSB.
For existing users there is nearly no migration overhead. They only need to
add the new assembly and they are done, no breaking changes.
If the second assembly is really a problem, we could provide an second
ilmerged distribution package.
Thoughts?
-Steve
On 01.02.2011 23:02, Corey Kaylor wrote:
It is both 3.5 and 4.0 currently, 4.0 is built from the powershell script.
Although all that is negotiable depending on the route chosen.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rhino Tools Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to rhino-tools-dev@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rhino-tools-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino
Tools Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to rhino-tools-dev@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rhino-tools-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en.
