Timeline for Builder pattern and dependency injection
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 21:42 | history | edited | NtFreX | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 140 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 20:57 | history | edited | NtFreX | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
[Edit removed during grace period]
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 20:56 | answer | added | JanDotNet | timeline score: 1 | |
| S Apr 27, 2017 at 20:50 | history | suggested | Igor Soloydenko |
.net tag is less relevant than the design-focusing ones. left c# since its super specific
|
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 20:48 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 27, 2017 at 20:50 | |||||
| Apr 27, 2017 at 20:42 | comment | added | Igor Soloydenko |
* Correction: Build<T>() with its generic-based code --> Build<T>() with its REFLECTION-based code
|
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 20:32 | comment | added | Igor Soloydenko | Yes, certain things are bad practices. However, they seem to be least of the alternative evils. Subjective: I recommend you to not listen to anyone blindly blaming the code without providing an alternative. I'll wait for the constructive criticism -- an answer that has the complete code that does the same + is cleaner + is not much heavier. | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 20:30 | comment | added | Igor Soloydenko |
There are a few things that sting my eyes: Build<T>() with its generic-based code, new *UnitOfWork type construction through inheritance, direct access to ServiceLocator instead of constructor injection, similarly = new TConfiguration() instead of injection... I tried to rewrite the code, but didn't come up with a working solution. I am not sure what are your real limitations (problem definition) vs things I can change. What is good about your code? Well, the fact that it prevents the type explosion. Meaning, it enforces DRY at the cost of code clarity.
|
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 20:14 | history | edited | NtFreX | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 240 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 20:05 | comment | added | NtFreX | @JanDotNet now there are 8. But after the implementation of the new featureset there will be around 15. | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 20:04 | comment | added | JanDotNet | How many different configuration and 'unit of work' types do you have (or expect)? | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 20:00 | answer | added | John | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 19:03 | comment | added | t3chb0t | It's really difficult to review it with such names. Everything is abstract and has no actuall meaning. Unfortunatelly this looks like an academic example from a book. It would be great if you could use more meaningfull names. | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 12:35 | comment | added | NtFreX |
@t3chb0t and the SpecialUnitOfWork is an example
|
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 12:31 | comment | added | NtFreX | @t3chb0t the "my" is just a replacement of the products name | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 12:30 | comment | added | t3chb0t |
There are a lot of mys. This does not look like real code.
|
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 12:27 | history | edited | t3chb0t | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 12:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 27, 2017 at 12:28 | |||||
| Apr 27, 2017 at 12:09 | history | edited | JanDotNet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typos
|
| Apr 27, 2017 at 12:06 | history | asked | NtFreX | CC BY-SA 3.0 |