Re: Creating a "public only" constructor

I'd have to look into it, but I am not sure how blocking the checkin of some files in one assembly (actually, several similar assemblies over several solutions) based on a search for default constructors for classes in that assembly would work... ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arun
Sent: Tuesday, 07 April 2009 00:04
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Creating a "public only" constructor

If you are using visual studio, you can write an add-in and integrate it
with  the check-in policy to avoid any wrong code being checked in. I guess
this can be done fairly easily

Regards
Arun

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Dean Cleaver <
[email protected]> wrote:

> I guess I was hoping for a programmatic way to prevent the juniors screwing
> up rather than me having to babysit them, and just hoping they don't.
>
> It's a complex and annoying situation... I get told I should be spending
> more time reviewing their code, then get told I have to bill so many hours
> to get my bonus, then get told I have to train other people on unrelated
> things, and I have to do... and then I get told off for not "doing my job".
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Frans Bouma
> Sent: Monday, 06 April 2009 23:47
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Creating a "public only" constructor
>
> > Yeah - but I guess it's not just now - it's ongoing. I *don't trust* the
> > juniors to be vigilant about using the right constructor, when it's so
> easy
> > to just "Class x = new class();" in that assembly.
>
>        If they're junior's, they're learning. Which means they need
> guidance and can't always be left alone, that's why they're juniors.
>
> > When I say I don't trust them, I found 57 copies of the same code in one
> > solution - rather that put it in a base class (which already existed)
> they
> > made 57 copies of the same class. I don't have time (half the time not
> even
> > in the came country) to review all their work, but I can't rely on them
> to
> > be accurate.
>
>        As you're not always around, who is guiding the juniors to become
> non-juniors? Juniors aren't senior engineers you can leave alone and expect
> good results. Unfortunately :( (I understand it's likely not your call and
> you're just dealing with a bad situation as-is, I'm just trying to help you
> even if it will sound like I am not helping you by working against what you
> want to do)
>
>                FB
>
> >
> > Dino
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED-
> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Jones
> > Sent: Monday, 06 April 2009 23:16
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Creating a "public only" constructor
> >
> > From reading all that has passed I would mark the default obsolete false
> and
> > the add treat warnings as errors into the main Code Base and the take the
> > hit and fix the compile errors that appear in the code. I've done a
> similar
> > thing when changing from home grown data layer to ms app blocks that was
> > half a million lines of code, 700 plus errors fixed. Dave.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:         Dean Cleaver <[email protected]>
> >
> > Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:12:12
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Creating a "public only" constructor
> >
> >
> > It is template based - but a bespoke generator.
> >
> > "As is't the default ctor you're worried about, it's easy to spot with
> > search/replace"
> >
> > Not with over 500 classes in 3 million lines of code it's not.
> >
> > There is no order of constructors. The "normal" apps which consist of
> about
> > 5 Windows Applications and 15 to 20 Web applications always use the
> > defaults, as has be the case for the past 8 or 9 years. Using the
> defaults
> > causes the underlying class factory to use the defaults also, which is
> > perfect for those apps.
> >
> > The scenario we have is we need to instantiate the same class on 2
> different
> > servers, and clone one to the other. My issue is if I instantiate an
> Invoice
> > class using the second constructor to point it directly to it's server,
> that
> > the existing code might not point all child objects to the same server if
> > they call the default constructor. And there is 8 to 10 years worth of
> code
> > already in there, so there is a *VERY* high chance that it uses the
> default
> > constructor. Hence why I was looking for a way to "block" the default
> > constructor from being used insite the assembly.
> >
> > Trust me - if the default cannot be blocked, then there are no other
> > options. Search and replace is not an option. Even putting attributes or
> > demands on the constructors requires someone to hand code all 500
> > constructors...
> >
> > Dino
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED-
> > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Frans Bouma
> > Sent: Monday, 06 April 2009 20:34
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Creating a "public only" constructor
> >
> > > If it were a new design yes - but it's not. The code generation has
> > allowed
> > > for this separate server capability, but I fear it cannot be utilised
> > fully
> > > because the code was historically never designed to work with it, and
> > > without hundreds of hours of trawling through the current codebase it
> > can't
> > > be successfully changed to a class factory type scenario.
> >
> >       If the code generation was template based, you might be able to do
> > something about it, but I'm not sure how it's generated.
> >
> >       Refactoring the code might be simpler than you might think. As is't
> > the default ctor you're worried about, it's easy to spot with
> > search/replace. if you load the codebase into vs.net, and do
> find/replace
> in
> > files, and replace the call to the empty ctor to a call to a factory, the
> > only thing that's to solve after that is the references to the right
> > namespace where the factory is located. You can also spot calls to the
> > second ctor with a simple regex in the find/replace dialog in vs.net.
> >
> >       But I still don't fully understand what the order is in which the
> > ctors are used. As I understand it, it seems that if I want to
> instantiate
> > an invoice, I use the empty ctor of Invoice. And if I want to instantiate
> an
> > invoiceitem, I use the parameter-using ctor in invoice, and you want to
> > prevent that the invoiceitem empty ctor is used, correct?
> >
> >       If you replace calls to both ctors to a call to a factory and make
> > both ctors internal, you have full control over when what is called.
> > However, I am a bit puzzled why the empty ctor is supposed to be public
> if
> > instantiating an invoiceitem is always dependent on the invoice itself
> (as
> > instantiating it on the same server as the invoice is always the best
> idea)
> >
> >               FB
> >
> > >
> > > Dino
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED-
> > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Frans Bouma
> > > Sent: Monday, 06 April 2009 19:57
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Creating a "public only" constructor
> > >
> > > Dean,
> > >
> > > I have the feeling the concern whether OTHER objects are created on
> > > the
> > same
> > > server is not the concern of the class you want to instantiate but the
> > > concern of a repository or other object. I know you're facing a large
> > > pile of code, but you have to make a change somewhere anyway. I'd
> > > factor out
> > this
> > > concern from this class and create factories to produce the proper
> > instances
> > > on the right server/service.
> > >
> > >     FB
> > >
> > > > Hmm - yeah. Not a bad idea... but would mean that only the Business
> > > Services
> > > > layer would ever compile in that release, and everything else would
> > fail.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED-
> > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Jones
> > > > Sent: Monday, 06 April 2009 19:31
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Creating a "public only" constructor
> > > >
> > > > Wrap the constructor in a #if release?   Then it won't be available
> in
> > > > debug?
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From:         Dean Cleaver <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:02:43
> > > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Creating a "public only" constructor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The second constructor allows you to create a business services
> > > > object on
> > > a
> > > > different connection to the default - so I can specifically create
> > > business
> > > > services objects connected to 2 different servers from within the
> > > > same application. I then want to ensure that if I create an Invoice
> > > > object on a given server, than any InvoiceItems it creates are on
> > > > the same server,
> > > which
> > > > would be done by using the second constructor. If a developer
> > > > accidentally uses the default constructor, it could make a mess of
> > > > the
> > > system.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED-
> > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Shawn Wildermuth
> > > > Sent: Monday, 06 April 2009 15:55
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Creating a "public only" constructor
> > > >
> > > > I don't think you can.  Can you explain why you want to protect it
> > > > from internal classes?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Shawn Wildermuth
> > > > http://wildermuth.com
> > > > https://agilitrain.com
> > > > Microsoft MVP (C#), MCSD.NET, Author and Speaker
> > > >
> > > > The Silverlight Tour is coming to a city near you!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics.
> > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dean
> > > > Cleaver
> > > > Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 11:42 PM
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Creating a "public only" constructor
> > > >
> > > > Hey, anyone know if you can do this with attributes or something? I
> > > > want
> > > to
> > > > have 2 public constructors:
> > > >
> > > > public ClassName()
> > > > {
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > public ClassName(some param)
> > > > {
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I want both publically accessible, but I want the default one
> > > *inaccessible*
> > > > internally. Can that be done?
> > > >
> > > > Dino
> > > >
> > > > ===================================
> > > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > > > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
> > > >
> > > > ===================================
> > > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > > > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
> > > >
> > > > ===================================
> > > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > > > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
> > > >
> > > > ===================================
> > > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > > > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
> > >
> > > ===================================
> > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
> > >
> > > ===================================
> > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
> >
> > ===================================
> > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
> >
> > ===================================
> > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
> >
> > ===================================
> > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
>
> ===================================
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
>
> ===================================
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives
>

===================================
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives

===================================
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives