Reputation
43,709
Next tag badge:
208/100 score
16/20 answers
Badges
13 109 197
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~1.2m people reached

Aug
10
comment Is that good idea to add ViewModel exactly same as Model
@MehdiDehghani: It's not as simple as yes or no, it's more that the security issues with direct access to data model are rare and easily coded around. If security were the only reason to use a View Model, I would suggest other solutions (server-side validation, for example). But I'd recommend a ViewModel for decoupling and it will, almost incidentally, help you protect your data model.
Aug
9
comment Is that good idea to add ViewModel exactly same as Model
@MehdiDehghani: Security isn't really a good reason to separate the two objects. The best reason is that the model as viewed in the UI (possibly in multiple formats) is not necessarily the same as the model stored in the database (never in multiple formats and more likely to "model" the business). Even if they look the same now, they are likely to diverge as an application scales; it's better to handle them separately, so there's no temptation to force one model into the other when that time comes.
Jul
30
comment What if the “catch” block is empty - “{}”
@Wilman: Whilst I agree that never is a strong word, NEVER catch (Exception) and swallow it. That will catch OutOfMemoryException, for example, which really should be thrown up to a handler at the top level. If you want to catch a specific kind of exception and swallow it then a comment is enough -- but that should be a rare case.
Jul
1
comment Is testable code better code?
Doesn't really answer your question, but you should keep in mind that good test coverage makes code easier to refactor and refactoring often leads to better code.
Jun
8
comment A Factory could be replaced by a key on the web.config? How would be the trade-offs of each approach?
Are you sure that it was instead of the factory? It seems to me that you have a factory either way, but one uses the environment name to decide which class to return and the other uses a config setting.
May
26
comment Design patterns for implementing optionally supported features
I think the point here is that P_User doesn't EXPECT anything of m_p, but if things are provided then it uses them. I don't see how DIP solves that problem.
May
26
comment Design patterns for implementing optionally supported features
I see why it appears that way, but it's not. As opposed to "if this condition, use this type, else if this condition, use another type, etc" this is "if the current protocol supports X, use it; if it supports Y, use it; if it supports Z, use it." The alternative is to have no-op methods in each protocol class and call them all, which is pretty hard to follow at scale. "Can" methods, as you point out, are no different from is and as.
May
26
comment Design patterns for implementing optionally supported features
"it does look suspiciously cumbersome" In what way?
Apr
2
comment Is it a bad practice to separate the unit tests for a class?
@AvetisG: People don't have to elaborate on their downvotes and it's unfair to ask them to. But I'll try to help you ... Only the first paragraph here even attempts to answer the question. The rest is an opinion, which some people wouldn't share. I, personally, agree with your opinion but I don't agree with the one paragraph that's relevant to the question, and I don't see the connection you're making. Mike's answer is correct: "Each test class (like any other class) should have a clear focus." That may or may not be the same focus as for your classes under test.
Mar
12
comment How to Use Python as a “Macro” runner for a C# Application
@Katana314: The question suggests he wants an application to which Python can send messages. Which would be a web service, even if it's not web-hosted. But the comment above suggests that he might want to send scripts to the app; in that case, I might suggest running Python, rather than embedding IronPython. Although, I've a gut feeling that Python isn't the answer either. Perhaps a DSL, perhaps in Boo. And that's why I'm looking for more information.
Mar
12
comment How to Use Python as a “Macro” runner for a C# Application
What is your app trying to achieve that couldn't be achieved with a RESTful web service?
Mar
11
comment Decorater pattern or strategy pattern
@8bitcat: Don't confuse the MVC for ASP.NET framework with the MVC pattern. There are other MVC frameworks out there that look entirely different (while still following the same pattern), particularly when you look outside the .NET world. Design Patterns (GoF, PoEEA) are a common language for problems that have been solved repeatedly in many different languages. programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/70877/…
Mar
4
comment Is using interfaces for datatypes an anti-pattern?
@Doval: I could create an IList that fulfils the contract IList and throws exceptions on each method, or make it delete a database on Add. But any method that calls Add on an object that fulfils the contract IList will still blindly call Add, no matter the behaviour of my implementation.
Mar
4
comment Is using interfaces for datatypes an anti-pattern?
@JeffO, Doval: That's my point, isn't it? It fits the interface, it fulfils the contract, the outlet will blindly send it electricity. If it doesn't do what it's intended to do at that point, that's a failure of the person who plugged that particular device into outlet. An interface does not guarantee behaviour, only that A will fit into B.
Mar
4
comment Is using interfaces for datatypes an anti-pattern?
@Doval: The distinction is that the contract is between the code passing the entity and the code receiving it (any object I pass you will conform to this contract, so you can make that assumption), not between the entity and either piece of code. Behaviour is the business of the entity. And seeing the behaviour as part of the contract leads to the question above. It's like seeing a 3.5mm jack socket as a behaviour, rather than a standard link between two undefined objects; my plugging headphones into my phone defines the overall behaviour of the circuit, not the connection.
Mar
4
comment Is using interfaces for datatypes an anti-pattern?
@Doval: I guess the name of the interface may describe the expected behaviour. But it doesn't have to; the interface could equally be named IHasIdAndDescription and the answer would be the same. The interface itself doesn't describe behaviour, it describes expectations.
Dec
18
comment Is it poor practice to call methods through multiple objects?
@supercat: I like that. I'm going to ponder it, and then probably steal it. :)
Dec
18
comment Is it poor practice to call methods through multiple objects?
@supercat: Lists and arrays are definitely one of those examples where common sense has to kick in. Although a List<Car> is an object in and of itself, I'd argue that every element in that list is really one of "O's direct component objects". Take your point one step further and we'll talk about each character in a string being owned by the string, not by the object that owns the string. Or maybe ban bitwise operators for working on bits owned by an int. Strict adherance to LoD could definitely get that silly, but that doesn't nullify the guideline.
Dec
18
comment Is it poor practice to call methods through multiple objects?
@supercat: If I'm understanding what you mean, that's exactly what LoD advises you not to do. Each object should have only one owner, which should pass it to child objects as method parameters or expose methods that allow parent objects to access the "grandchild" indirectly. Again, I'm not arguing for the LoD as a hard-and-fast rule here, I'm explaining why there's no mention of multiple ownership in an article about the Law of Demeter -- because the two things are orthogonal.
Dec
16
comment Shortest Common Superstring: find shortest string that contains all given string fragments
@majidgeek: Thanks for letting me know.