Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refactor Operations: Requester, Responder & Subscriber #64

Closed
pardahlman opened this issue Mar 1, 2016 · 0 comments
Closed

Refactor Operations: Requester, Responder & Subscriber #64

pardahlman opened this issue Mar 1, 2016 · 0 comments

Comments

@pardahlman
Copy link
Owner

No description provided.

@pardahlman pardahlman changed the title Refactor Operations: Requester Refactor Operations: Requester, Responder & Subscriber Mar 5, 2016
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2016
Instead of having a dictionary with value as object we have Tcs<object> that
is casted upon task completion.
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2016
No point in even trying to get more than one response
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2016
Rather than relying on generic argument. This is because I want to move from
having one consumer per type, but rather have consumers that can handle
messages comming in.
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2016
Since it will get an TaskCompletionSource<object>, no matter the response type.
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2016
That exists for two seconds. It should be enough for any application to
create most of its queues and exchanges.
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2016
That is, using the TopologyProvider for topology stuff and using the
channel factory for retrieving channel.
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2016
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2016
That can be used to keep the number of tasks created down.
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2016
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 5, 2016
And by doing so, no one uses the operation base anymore, so it's gone baby,
gone.
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 6, 2016
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 6, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant