Skip to content

Conversation

@hasancanguler
Copy link
Contributor

This installer has been added to solve the following issue:
#55

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jun 25, 2025

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@DharmishthaVPatel
Copy link

Hi ,

Thank you for your contribution. We have routed the PR to the appropriate team and they will get back to you as soon as possible.

Kind regards,
The team in Particular

@hasancanguler
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @DharmishthaVPatel

Kind reminder.

@DharmishthaVPatel
Copy link

DharmishthaVPatel commented Jul 23, 2025

@hasancanguler,

The request is still with the relevant team for review and implementation.

I appreciate your patience!

@danielmarbach
Copy link
Contributor

danielmarbach commented Aug 12, 2025

@hasancanguler Thanks for the contribution. I'm currently reviewing your PR and planning to pull things into the codebase while potentially undoing the renames to keep the feature names as is.

Generally we are also trying to keep the public API surface as lean as possible, so I would also go ahead and internalize the installers. Is there a particular reason you made those types public in your PR? Do you need that functionality to be invokable outside NServiceBus for some other tooling purposes?

Additionally, our persistences usually provide a way to decouple disabling the creation of the infrastructure from the installers. We have seen some customers having valid reasons to have installers enabled while disabling the index creation. That's the reason why all persisters have some kind of Disable* methods on the configuration API. Examples

https://docs.particular.net/persistence/sql/install#script-execution-in-non-development-environments
https://docs.particular.net/persistence/dynamodb/#usage-customizing-the-table-used-table-creation
https://docs.particular.net/persistence/cosmosdb/#usage-customizing-the-container-used

Another question. Are you currently in need of this in your project, or can this wait to be released in the next major release (quite likely to be released around the release of .NET 10)?

@danielmarbach
Copy link
Contributor

We have pulled the changes into #791

@hasancanguler
Copy link
Contributor Author

hi @danielmarbach, thank you for your questions and review.

There is no specific reason to keep it public; we can standardise the access modifiers.
It would be perfect if we could include this change in this version.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants