Add API hook when bus is started but messages are not yet being delivered #87
Conversation
src/Abc.Zebus.Tests/Dispatch/DispatchMessages/ExecutableEvent.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| @@ -30,11 +31,12 @@ public class DispatchQueue : IDisposable | |||
|
|
|||
| internal SynchronizationContext SynchronizationContext { get; } | |||
|
|
|||
| public DispatchQueue(IPipeManager pipeManager, int batchSize, string name) | |||
| public DispatchQueue(IPipeManager pipeManager, int batchSize, string name, TimeSpan timeToWaitForInitialization) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need a timeout? That seems dangerous as you won't be able to assume the bus is not processing the received messages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So as not to completely block the start-up of the Bus if one of the initialisers is blocked.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer it to block, so it doesn't go undetected. @ocoanet what do you think?
| @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ public abstract class HostInitializer | |||
| /// </summary> | |||
| public virtual int Priority => 0; | |||
|
|
|||
| public virtual bool CallAfterStartBeforeMessageDeliveryHasStarted => false; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't a different function like AfterStartBeforeDispatch be better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I considered it but thought that it didn't really make sense to be able to override both at the same time and therefore we shouldn't give the user the option to do so. It also would make it easier to change the default behaviour for all our hosts at once if we are confident that the new time is better in all situations.
Co-Authored-By: Lucas Trzesniewski <lucas.trzesniewski@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Lucas Trzesniewski <lucas.trzesniewski@gmail.com>
|
@ocoanet, do you want to have a look at the open comments on this PR or should we merge it? |
…-delivering-api-hook # Conflicts: # azure-pipelines.yml
Resolves #86