Re: Creating a "public only" constructor

> 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.

	if there are no consequences for the juniors when they screw up,
they won't be motivated to get better in general: you'll be there to clean
up the mess anyway. So IMHO it's not a healthy environment for you to work
in: you're in a lose-lose situation, as far as I can judge from the sparse
info you gave. 

> 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".

	ugh... sounds like hell.  I don't envy you. 

	Though, have you picked this up with your manager? It sounds like
management thinks a single person can do all this and everything is
allright, but apparently they have unrealistic expectations (guiding juniors
really is a fulltime job if you want them to get better), either from you
(as it sounds like no-one can do that without going insane) or from the
juniors who apparently are even less capable of writing software than my
mother. 

		FB

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED-
> [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