Upgrade Deprecated Azure SDK Clients

[pinkfloydx33]

Upgrade Deprecated Azure SDK Clients

[niemyjski]

I haven't had time to finish that pr, if you could pick up where I left off that would be awesome. we'd want to support both identity options both passwordless and connection string. Would you please take over upgrading this for me?

[pinkfloydx33]

I'd be more than happy to contribute but likely cannot do anything until the coming weekend. I'd also want to ensure that Servicebus was upgraded as well so that they match.

Password-less still use a connection string--it's just a different form of it. How much it supports under the hood is dependent upon which version of Azure.Identity gets used.

Originally I was going to suggest we take the dependency on Ms.E.Azure to support injecting queues/blobs/etc via the factory interfaces. But I think doing so would inadvertently restrict how the library is used.

That said, I think we need to consider how to ensure this library can play well with the extensions library. If we don't reference it ourselves then we should probably change the queue/blob/etc option builders to accept either

• a connection string plus options (current), or
• a set of pre-built queue/blob/bus objects.

This way the user can inject pre-configured clients that adhere to things like AddAzureClients and ConfigureDefaults (for retries, logging, metrics, etc) without this library munging them. These would obviously take priority over the other options (if both were provided). It would give the user freedom to use either mechanism, continuing to allow Foundatio full control if they so choose...albeit at the cost of a little complexity here, which I personally think is worth it.

Then all we'd need to do is provide examples of how to use the azure factories + DI factory registrations to configure Foundatio for anyone leveraging such things.

What do you think?

[niemyjski]

If anything, I'd make it additive to what we already do, you could create a third constructor to take those concrete arguments as it doesn't really feel idiomatic to do it via options.

[pinkfloydx33]

Sounds good to me

[niemyjski]

@pinkfloydx33 have you been able to make any progress on this?

[pinkfloydx33]

Hi @niemyjski, I got busy and completely forgot about this. We've gone a different route with our application and no longer need the functionality, making it a much lower priority for me. I still believe it's worthwhile though and would contribute if only I had some free time :-(