Hi, On the first page of chapter 2 Bloch states that his item 1 is not the Factory Method pattern described in gang four book. You can read it here ...
... On the first page of chapter 2 Bloch states that his item 1 is not the Factory Method pattern described in gang four book. You can read it here ...
I agree with Mel's response (below), and with Josh's original point, but will state it a little differently. Seeing things from multiple angles sometimes adds...
I will answer this question briefly here as I am not sure if this is the appropriate forum for discussing a Design Patterns question in a Lean Programming...
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Bartels, Mel ... Are they strongly identiy coupled? If I had something like public interface Foo class FooOne implements Foo ...
... public class Factory{ public static Foo Create( int choice ) {....} } This is static factory method. No? And it's as loosely coupled as you can design for....
I just got this question off-line but thought I would answer it here. Alan, I just read you presentation material "Design Patterns Explained: From Theory To...
Ok I think the heart of my confusion has been thinking that the Gof pattern was the general notion of a factory, As Scott said, "anything that produces an...
Here are some more: "Community" "Collection" "Concentration" seems to be the best choice, as it is the only antonym of "dispersion" that I could find and...
I'll take a run at trying to clear up the point here... at least, in the way I look at it. In OO design, one thing we try to do is to avoid coupling to...
This is kind of askew the main line of the conversation, but I'll say it anyway. Scott nailed one of the reasons why encapsulated constructors are so important...
Well said! From: leanprogramming@yahoogroups.com [mailto:leanprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Max Guernsey, III Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:50 PM ...
So, I've heard people say they dislike the "var" keyword in C# 3.0. Some people like it, too. I wanted to know what people generally think of it and why. ...
I like to think of type-safety in languages this a-way... We make mistakes. We try to minimize them, but we make them, and we know we make them, and so we...
... So, I've heard people say they dislike the "var" keyword in C# 3.0. Some people like it, too. I wanted to know what people generally think of it and why....
I like this, Mel. If you combine my point (type safety helps prevent defects) and yours (type safety is more important under certain circumstances), I think...
To change the subject back - partially because I need to go look that other keyword up - I don't understand all of what you said. The "var" keyword has no...
... The "var" keyword has no potential to generate an exception related to type safety later on. To what exceptions down the line are you referring? <<< Sure,...
If that were the case, then. renderer.scale(service.getSomething()); .would have thrown the exact same error, right? Max Guernsey, III Managing Member, Hexagon...
Okay. I just reread this. Are you saying that the parameter of renderer.scale used something like VariantType or System.Object for its type of argument and...
... renderer.scale(service.getSomething()); ...would have thrown the exact same error, right? <<< Yes. This was all part of a larger change request, so there...
Perhaps the real different here is explicit vs. implicit intent? From: leanprogramming@yahoogroups.com [mailto:leanprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of...
I'm really interested in this. In part because I don't understand it. Is there a way that we could see a compiling test that fails in such a way as to...
I agree. I'm interrogating Mel not because I disagree with him - I actually agree with the general rule of "use it as a way of saying the type doesn't matter"...
True. Has anyone found that, when using "var," they choose better, more intention-revealing variable names? Max Guernsey, III Managing Member, Hexagon...
... I'm really interested in this. In part because I don't understand it. Is there a way that we could see a compiling test that fails in such a way as to...
I think it is kind of what I'm looking for in that it is validation that the failing code was equivalent to foo(bar()). Once the error was exposed, how was it...
