Rework how capabilities deal with service names #856
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…mational only) requirement data
…its own capability
|
Windows Build 1630 is now running using a merge of 4f1e166 |
|
Linux Build 2092 is now running using a merge of 4f1e166 |
|
Core - Full Integration Build 1228 is now running using a merge of 4f1e166 |
|
Windows Build 1630 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of 4f1e166 |
|
Linux Build 2092 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of 4f1e166 |
|
Core - Full Integration Build 1228 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of 4f1e166 |
kabir
added
the
ready-for-merge
bstansberry
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 3, 2015
Rework how capabilities deal with service names
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Biggest change is WFCORE-793 -- only allow one service per capability, and no custom service names.
Also some improvements in how code can work with RuntimeCapability to get service names. Needed because capability providers should use their own RuntimeCapability, and not the OperationContext to get service names.
I've also deprecated some RuntimeCapability.Builder methods used to store data that's currently unused with no clear plan to use it. The methods are confusing as the may lead devs to think something will be done with the data that won't.