-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 144
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
Comments
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
pardahlman
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 5, 2016
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
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
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
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: