network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | Brisbane, Australia | |
| age | 34 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 7 months |
| seen | Apr 22 at 3:46 | |
| stats | profile views | 2 |
|
Oct 20 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
Sep 2 |
accepted | Distributed Transaction Framework across webservices |
|
Aug 30 |
asked | Distributed Transaction Framework across webservices |
|
Aug 14 |
accepted | Is it OK for a function to modify a parameter |
|
Aug 14 |
comment |
Is it OK for a function to modify a parameter All these answers pretty much sum up our own discussions. This seems to be a question with no real answer. Your statement "Yes, you're returning the same object as you passed in, but it makes the API clearer." pretty much answered our question. |
|
Aug 13 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Aug 13 |
asked | Is it OK for a function to modify a parameter |
|
Jul 30 |
accepted | Is my mediator layer a sensible way to manage this scenario using the Single Responsibility Principle? |
|
Jul 30 |
comment |
Is my mediator layer a sensible way to manage this scenario using the Single Responsibility Principle? That was a great link. I like way he describes simple vs easy. I'm still finding my feet when it comes to implementing OO principles, so when I get comments like "it's over engineered", I find it hard to defend against. I just know/feel its better than what I was doing. All these answers and that link just reinforced that I'm heading in the right direction. Many thanks for your answer. |
|
Jul 30 |
comment |
Is my mediator layer a sensible way to manage this scenario using the Single Responsibility Principle? It's actually a far simpler scenario. The website only talks to one site service at any one time. There is a site switcher module that allows the user to change which site service the mediator uses, but the rest of application has no idea it has been switched. In truth, the mediator doesn't even know that it's using wcf. It just has a reference to an object it passes calls onto. that object can be swapped out at any time. Wcf being very easy to implement and create proxies at runtime, means I just need to store a list of uri's on the central server that I can add to or remove as needed. |
|
Jul 30 |
revised |
Is my mediator layer a sensible way to manage this scenario using the Single Responsibility Principle? fixed spelling |
|
Jul 28 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Jul 28 |
revised |
Is my mediator layer a sensible way to manage this scenario using the Single Responsibility Principle? fixed some grammar |
|
Jul 27 |
asked | Is my mediator layer a sensible way to manage this scenario using the Single Responsibility Principle? |
|
Oct 23 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Oct 23 |
accepted | Translating objects from one type to a another |
|
Oct 21 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Oct 21 |
comment |
Translating objects from one type to a another Yeah, I am thinking that a converter class is the better way to go. Being flexible makes sense. It will allow me to create another converter if needed without filling up my working class with converter methods. |
|
Oct 21 |
comment |
Translating objects from one type to a another Yeah, the MessageClass is my DataContract (not called that of course). I simplified it for the question. The WCF side is not the problem. The problem is I don't want/need to send the whole WorkingClass to the server. It just needs both of the WorkingClass.FileInfo.FullName properties so it can do it own work on that data. My question in this case is really about what is the best practice for transforming a class into a data contract. |
|
Oct 20 |
awarded | Student |
