I'm engaged in building NServiceBus Gateway handler, and I need to avoid config files so that all configuration is defined inside c# classes. As a result I have to convert the following section to c# code
<GatewayConfig>
<Channels>
<Channel Address="http://localhost:25899/SiteB/" ChannelType="Http" Default="true"/>
</Channels>
</GatewayConfig>
I've found GatewayConfig, ChannelCollection and ChannelConfig in a NServiceBus.Config namespace, but I can not link them together, coz GatewayConfig refers to ChannelCollection, but ChannelCollection has nothing to do with ChannelConfig. Please help
Just create a class implementing IProvideConfiguration of GatewayConfig. That gives you a way to provide your own config. Look at the pubsub sample for the exact details on how to do this.
Well, I've found the way to do it as I installed Reflector and looked into the implementation. There is a ChannelCollection.CreateNewElement() method returning back System.Configuration.ConfigurationElement. NServiceBus overriden the method instantiating ChannelConfig inside it, so all I have to do is to cast ConfigurationElement type to ChannelConfig type which is far from intuitive interface. Looks like this NServiceBus.Config.ChannelCollection is kind of unfinished work, because if you look at other collections like NServiceBus.Config.MessageEndpointMappingCollection you can find there all necessary type-safe methods to work with its child elements NServiceBus.Config.MessageEndpointMapping, so I think NServiceBus team was just lazy to make the same for ChannelCollection.
UPDATE: as CreateNewElement() method is protected, I have to implement my own class inherited from ChannelCollection to make a method adding new ChannelConfig element publicly available
Related
There's a solid chance I'm misusing classes here which is why I need your help.
I've started developing with Java EE and one of the problems I am facing is I have a process which I have organised in a class, call it: "SendEmail.java".
Now let's say I have two other classes called "Thunderalert.java" and "FloodAlert.java" which will use all the methods that SendEmails.java has within it.
So I want to know the best way of using the SendEmails methods from each of the other classes.
Should I be creating an instance of SendEmails and accessing each method individually and error checking along the way (what if an exception is thrown?).. It's methods are just procedural code, so it's not really an 'object' as such
Shall I just be using the one method that runs all the other internal ones from within SendMail
Should this SendMail be redesigned as a helper class-type design?
I'm still quite new at Java EE so I'm not sure if there are any options available which I am missing
I think you should have one public method inside SendEmail class.
Btw, I would consider changing its name. I think having method send() when class is called SendEmail is not the best way (not to mention about names like call(), invoke() etc).
This is great article about this problem (The Kingdom of Nouns) in java.
What about something like: new Email(recipient, body).send()?
Or if you want to do it in a service style, I'd call it for example MailService
I wonder if it's possible to get an instance of the JAX-RS Application a resource is attached on. Ideally a way that isn't dependent to a specific implementation. For example using dependency injection...
Thanks very much for your help,
Thierry
As stated in The Spec
5.2.1 Application
The instance of the application-supplied Application subclass can be injected into a class field or method parameter using the #Context annotation. Access to the Application subclass instance allows configuration information to be centralized in that class. Note that this cannot be injected into the Application subclass itself since this would create a circular dependency.
but from I've experienced, it will most likely not be the actual instance, but a proxy. Also if you're looking to alter anything on it, I'm not sure it's possible. It might be read-only.
If you request an unbound object from NInject, then the default behaviour is (if a suitable constructor is available) appears to be to create an instance of the appropriate object.
I'd like to disable this behaviour (I had a difficult to debug issue because something was auto-bound instead of picking up my custom binding in a module). This question hints that it is possible, but I'm unable to find the answer from the NInject wiki.
Remove the SelfBindingResolver from the kernel components after creation:
kernel.Components.RemoveAll<IMissingBindingResolver>();
kernel.Components.Add<IMissingBindingResolver, DefaultValueBindingResolver>();
The following is a better, more direct way of removing the SelfBindingResolver, without assuming that the DefaultValueBindingResolver is the only other IMissingBindingResolver component:
kernel.Components.Remove<IMissingBindingResolver, SelfBindingResolver>();
It's possible the Remove<T, TImplementation>() method was only added in a recent version of Ninject, but this works for me using Ninject 3.2.2.0.
For the case of a project requirement, I need to instantiate WsdlContractConversionContext which is not having a constructor for doing so.
Is there any work around to achieve this?
WsdlContractConversionContext is a member of the System.ServiceModel.Description namespace.
Note:
The requirement exactly is that, I am doing an implementation of IWsdlExportExtension.ExportContract and IWsdlImportExtension.ImportContract, and to unit test this implemetation I need the instance of WsdlContractConversionContext.
There are basically two ways to do that: you can either use reflection to call the non-public constructor of the class (making sure you're passing appropriate parameters to it); or you can let WCF create it for you, and use it wherever you need. The WsdlContractConversionContext is passed as one of the parameters to either IWsdlExportExtension.ExportContract or an IWsdlImportExtension.ImportContract, so you'd need to implement one of the two interfaces (exporting is usually easier, since you won't need to fiddle with WSDL-consuming tools), and force the interface to be called (you may need to hit the service metadata endpoint for that).
The post at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/carlosfigueira/archive/2011/10/06/wcf-extensibility-wsdl-export-extension.aspx has an example of an implementation of a WSDL export extension.
Update following edit in the question: many parts of WCF are notoriously hard to be unit tested. If you can't use WCF itself to create the instance, the only alternative you have is to use reflection. To create an instance of the conversion context class you need an instance of a ContractDescription (which you can create for your contract, but isn't easy), and a PortType, which is even harder. I'm afraid that unit testing your implementation of the WSDL export / import extension may not be worth the effort.
I recently moved to using the binary serializer to send messages with NServiceBus. My messages are all defined as interfaces and are instantiated using
bus.Send<MessageType>(msg => msg.Property = someValue)
This leads to an exception being thrown from NServiceBus stating that
Cannot create an instance of an
interface
I can see from the stack trace that the SimpleMessageMapper is being used, and after looking in the source can see it's making a call to Activator.CreateInstance.
I can't find anything in the documentation stating that it's not possible to do what I'm trying to do, is there a way to fix this?
Thanks,
Matt
I only just started playing with nServiceBus, so all I can offer you is theory :).
Are you defining the implementation classes for your message interfaces, or is nServiceBus generating classes on its own? If the former, make sure you still have a default constructor and that the class and all fields/events are marked as [Serializable] or [NonSerialized]. If the latter, it's possible that nServiceBus doesn't know how to generate members which may be needed for (de)serialization. You may have to write and map the implementation class yourself.