How to Handle a Message? about docs.particular.net HOT 16 CLOSED

@sfarmar @jdrat2000
Should there be a link to this article:
How to Reply to a Message?

from docs.particular.net.

Not sure... It would be nice if we could have a related links functionality in our pages...

As for adding links, i would add a link to the pub/sub sample?

from docs.particular.net.

@sfarmar
You are the expert. I just make wild guesses. :-)

(Personally, I'm not keen on related links functionality. I prefer to see the links in context. That way, I can see why another topic might be of interest to me.)

from docs.particular.net.

Fair point.

from docs.particular.net.

I will add the link and reasoning behind it.

from docs.particular.net.

@mauroservienti @sfarmar @andreasohlund
I am having some trouble with this article. The second example around handling all messages by handling the IMessage interface used to work for me. I remember doing this a bit to put a handler on the audit queue for example before the existence of servicecontrol and stuff like that.

However, now when I try to implement a generic handler for IMessage, it doesn't work. Perhaps I am doing something wrong with the unobtrusive declarations setup but a generic handler doesn't fire and if I try to get funky in the unobtrusive space and map all namespaces to messages regardless of their namespace using .DefiningMessagesAs(t => t.Namespace != null ) the endpoint won't start.

I'd like to understand whether there is a base way to handle all messages but is it an implementation we even want to promote? I wouldn't want users to make a bunch of generic handlers and switch on type or anything crazy like that anyway?

Please advise.
Thx.

from docs.particular.net.

First you need a convention that hits all desired messages (I mostly use
namespaces). Then you just create a handler for object or dynamic?

On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Joe R [email protected] wrote:

@mauroservienti https://github.com/mauroservienti @sfarmarhttps://github.com/sfarmar
@andreasohlund https://github.com/andreasohlund
I am having some trouble with this article. The second example around
handling all messages by handling the IMessage interface used to work for
me. I remember doing this a bit to put a handler on the audit queue for
example before the existence of servicecontrol and stuff like that.

However, now when I try to implement a generic handler for IMessage, it
doesn't work. Perhaps I am doing something wrong with the unobtrusive
declarations setup but a generic handler doesn't fire and if I try to get
funky in the unobtrusive space and map all namespaces to messages
regardless of their namespace using .DefiningMessagesAs(t => t.Namespace !=
null ) the endpoint won't start.

I'd like to understand whether there is a base way to handle all messages
but is it an implementation we even want to promote? I wouldn't want users
to make a bunch of generic handlers and switch on type or anything crazy
like that anyway?

Please advise.
Thx.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/37#issuecomment-29577466
.

from docs.particular.net.

@jdrat2000 take a look here

Sorry for the short reply

from docs.particular.net.

@sfarmar Thanks for the replies. I could illustrate a generic handler for object as long as I do as Andreas said and use a namespace path in my unobtrusive setup. If I don't specify namespace and just leave it too generic the reflection process seems to hit every dll in the assembly path which isn't so nice:).

I guess the question is, do I even need an example of a 'generic' handler in an article like this? In your example it would appear you are allowing for the configuration of more types to handle, correct?

Thanks Sean.

from docs.particular.net.

@jdrat2000 yes, is that ok for you?

from docs.particular.net.

@sfarmar Yep. It makes sense. I guess in the page I can show how I map a basic Namespace to the .DefiningMessagesAs sort of thing with a generic object handler. I put it out there and let you know and you can tell me if it makes sense. Thanks Sean.

from docs.particular.net.

@sfarmar Sean could you see if this makes sense technically? I'll assign it to an for grammar review etc.

from docs.particular.net.

@AnnePicus Please review thanks.

from docs.particular.net.

I assume that "unobstrusive" is meant to be "unobtrusive".
Edited.

from docs.particular.net.

Yes.  Thank you. 
  On 12/10/2013 1:05 AM, AnnePicus wrote:

  I assume that "unobstrusive" is meant to be "unobtrusive".
    Edited.
  —
    Reply to this email directly or view
      it on GitHub.

from docs.particular.net.

Closing this one.

from docs.particular.net.