- #SEPARATION STUDIO NOT RESPONDING HOW TO#
- #SEPARATION STUDIO NOT RESPONDING DRIVER#
- #SEPARATION STUDIO NOT RESPONDING LICENSE#
Core: Added option to change directory when opening or saving scenes.Core: Open window defaults to the Scenes tab when My Scenes is empty.If you haven't migrated your legacy floating licenses (cloud or on-premise), please contact before updating to Factory I/O v2.5.0.
#SEPARATION STUDIO NOT RESPONDING LICENSE#
Starting at version 2.5.0, on-premise license servers are no longer supported. Licensing: Fixed automatic proxy detection and usage of Proxy Auto-Configuration (PAC) file.
#SEPARATION STUDIO NOT RESPONDING DRIVER#
Parts: Increased stacker crane fork stroke by 0.1 m to 1.3 m.Parts: Fixed rare bug that caused items on top of the turntable to disappear.Parts: Fixed Emitter timer behavior on scene reset.Core: Fixed collision sounds produced by items moving over conveyors.Core: Fixed key-based shortcuts for pause, reset, and apply timescale not working properly.Core: Added ability to open scenes by dragging and dropping a scene file into the application window.UI: Fixed input field caret visibility.Licensing: Properly inform the user about expired licenses.
#SEPARATION STUDIO NOT RESPONDING HOW TO#
I think solution-per-service is ideal, but the logistics of your platform may be prohibitive. In conclusion: pick your platform and your devops first. Depending on how you plan to scale your services, "solution-per-service" may not be an option (for reasons outside the scope of this answer). The Visual Studio solution has to be tailored somewhat to accommodate these dependencies. In Service Fabric, an "application" hosts a "service" (I encourage you to read more about the nomenclature if you are interested in this option). However, we ended up choosing Service Fabric, which impacted our decision. Had we settled on Docker Swarm or Kubernetes as a platform, I think this "solution-per-service" decision would have worked out fine. This gave us the flexibility to keep services on old versions of libraries if necessary. "Core" libraries were then hosted via internal nuget feeds for consumption by any service. Any common "core" libraries also had their own solutions. Initially, we decided one solution per microservice was the best way to go. We ultimately found that decisions made about the devops pipeline and the microservices platform will likely dictate how the Visual Studio projects and solutions are organized. I kind of feel like I'm in somewhat uncharted territory here and would appreciate some guidance! Is it best to organize the source in namespaces and folders that respect the logical divisions of microservices? Should each microservice have its own solution with each of the prescribed DDD projects? Should we "move up a level in the tree" and create a solution for each node in the DDD structure, then create individual projects for each microservice? Deploying each service with a 10mb "Domain" DLL filled with assemblies it will never load is not desirable. Obviously we want the deployment process to be as uncoupled as possible. We're also foreseeing some troubles with deployment in the future. Another example is our domain entities: a "member" entity may have different meanings (and even different structures) depending on its microservice context. Maybe this is okay, but it feels like there's not an organizational separation between microservice contexts. Presently all of those handlers are just dumped in the same "Handler" folder/namespace within "Domain". However, we're finding that the domain and infrastructure projects aren't doing a good job of organizing each microservice logically.įor example, we have the notion of a "domain event handler" that does some work when it receives a message. Presently we're using the Implementing Domain Driven Design folder structure to organize the source files. We're starting to refactor one of our major products to a more microservices-oriented architecture.
0 kommentar(er)
