Re: Creating a "public only" constructor

Or you may want write it as an FxCop/Code-Analysis rule and integrate it
with check-ins

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Dean Cleaver <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>

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