Click here to Skip to main content
15,903,175 members
Home / Discussions / Design and Architecture
   

Design and Architecture

 
GeneralRe: Consultant/Principal/Senior Software Engineer Pin
Paul Conrad29-Jul-09 12:39
professionalPaul Conrad29-Jul-09 12:39 
AnswerRe: Consultant/Principal/Senior Software Engineer Pin
Eddy Vluggen16-Jul-09 2:27
professionalEddy Vluggen16-Jul-09 2:27 
QuestionIs this an existing pattern Pin
sadavoya15-Jul-09 7:30
sadavoya15-Jul-09 7:30 
AnswerRe: Is this an existing pattern Pin
CodingYoshi15-Jul-09 17:27
CodingYoshi15-Jul-09 17:27 
GeneralRe: Is this an existing pattern Pin
sadavoya17-Jul-09 5:31
sadavoya17-Jul-09 5:31 
QuestionDTO design supporting multiple tables Pin
Leftyfarrell15-Jul-09 6:10
Leftyfarrell15-Jul-09 6:10 
AnswerRe: DTO design supporting multiple tables Pin
CodingYoshi15-Jul-09 17:33
CodingYoshi15-Jul-09 17:33 
QuestionRe: DTO design supporting multiple tables Pin
Leftyfarrell16-Jul-09 1:51
Leftyfarrell16-Jul-09 1:51 
Thanks for your reply.

I agree that I don't like the class per table idea. Tables are normalized. Classes should represent proper domain objects.

The question then becomes, where do you draw the line on CRUD operations. To me, a UserWidget without the UserControlPath property is kind of useless. On the other hand, when you save a new UserWidget, you cannot edit/change the UserControlPath property value. You could consider it a lookup and allow them to change the WidgetId (indirectly choosing a different UserControlPath).

But, if the UserWidget is exposed via WCF, read-only properties are not supported. So I can expose the WidgetId, which is editable, but if I provide a string UserControlPath property, it becomes editable on a WCF data contract, which I don't want.

So they load up a UserWidget object, change the UserControlPath string value, and submit the object for saving... now what? Ignore the property value? Allow the saving of this instance to change the value for all other instances? Neither sounds very elegant.
AnswerRe: DTO design supporting multiple tables Pin
CodingYoshi16-Jul-09 3:24
CodingYoshi16-Jul-09 3:24 
GeneralRe: DTO design supporting multiple tables Pin
Leftyfarrell16-Jul-09 3:58
Leftyfarrell16-Jul-09 3:58 
GeneralRe: DTO design supporting multiple tables Pin
CodingYoshi16-Jul-09 8:05
CodingYoshi16-Jul-09 8:05 
GeneralRe: DTO design supporting multiple tables Pin
Leftyfarrell16-Jul-09 9:56
Leftyfarrell16-Jul-09 9:56 
GeneralRe: DTO design supporting multiple tables Pin
CodingYoshi16-Jul-09 17:13
CodingYoshi16-Jul-09 17:13 
QuestionOODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? Pin
copec10-Jul-09 17:15
copec10-Jul-09 17:15 
AnswerRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? Pin
riced11-Jul-09 10:06
riced11-Jul-09 10:06 
GeneralRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? [modified] Pin
copec11-Jul-09 11:25
copec11-Jul-09 11:25 
GeneralRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? Pin
riced12-Jul-09 2:12
riced12-Jul-09 2:12 
GeneralRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? Pin
copec12-Jul-09 7:08
copec12-Jul-09 7:08 
GeneralRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? Pin
riced12-Jul-09 21:07
riced12-Jul-09 21:07 
GeneralRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? Pin
copec14-Jul-09 11:15
copec14-Jul-09 11:15 
GeneralRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? Pin
riced14-Jul-09 20:55
riced14-Jul-09 20:55 
GeneralRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? Pin
copec15-Jul-09 3:49
copec15-Jul-09 3:49 
GeneralRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? Pin
riced15-Jul-09 5:20
riced15-Jul-09 5:20 
GeneralRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? [modified] Pin
copec15-Jul-09 8:11
copec15-Jul-09 8:11 
GeneralRe: OODB or RDB for checkbook/budget program? Pin
riced15-Jul-09 22:28
riced15-Jul-09 22:28 

General General    News News    Suggestion Suggestion    Question Question    Bug Bug    Answer Answer    Joke Joke    Praise Praise    Rant Rant    Admin Admin   

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.