Timeline for Specification pattern and open closed principle
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2024 at 15:31 | history | edited | Doc Brown |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 31, 2016 at 5:31 | vote | accept | mfrachet | ||
| Aug 31, 2016 at 1:37 | answer | added | Frank Hileman | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 27, 2016 at 9:15 | answer | added | Doc Brown | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 0:46 | comment | added | candied_orange | I fail to see the Open Closed concern here. What are you thinking would need refactoring rather than extension? | |
| Aug 24, 2016 at 20:18 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackProgrammer/status/768542981896957952 | ||
| Aug 24, 2016 at 18:25 | history | edited | Tulains Córdova | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 180 characters in body
|
| Aug 24, 2016 at 18:05 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 24, 2016 at 18:03 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Looking over the code in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_pattern, I note that none of that code will change at all when you encode your specifications in classes. You can write as many rules classes as you want, and those rules will never change unless you make an error writing a rule or you want to change the behavior of a rule. I think you're over-thinking this. Yet another software developer torpedoed by Uncle Bob's SOLID principles. | |
| Aug 24, 2016 at 17:31 | comment | added | mfrachet | Yeah, I wanted to tell that I have to call .add or .or in the parent rule that aggregates the two (or more) rules | |
| Aug 24, 2016 at 17:29 | comment | added | Doc Brown | "Modify the rules code"? Surely not. Did you probably mean "modify the code rules which connects the rules together"? | |
| Aug 24, 2016 at 17:18 | history | asked | mfrachet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |