Jak Charlton - Insane World - All Comments

Domain Driven Design

TrackBack — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:38:48 GMT

Greenfield Development with ASP.NET MVC & S#arp Lite - Day 2

Billy McCafferty — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:25:34 GMT

A series of posts providing proven guidance for developing ASP.NET MVC applications from idea to well

Recovering a Project with ASP.NET MVC and Agile - Jak Charlton - Insane World - Devlicio.us - Just the Tasty Bits

Blue Ray Plus - Latest Technology News — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:32:02 GMT

Thank you for submitting this cool story - Trackback from Blue Ray Plus - Latest Technology News

re: Avoiding Prescriptive Requirements

Nick — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:43:37 GMT

I agree, I've started using SpecFlow http://www.specflow.org/ for this. It has the concept of Features that describe your core requirements, and Scenarios which describe the detailed implementations/flows.

re: Single Action per Controller in ASP.NET MVC

Quooston — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:58:23 GMT

I agree, using partial classes in order to disguise bigger problems related to SRP and such is not a good thing. I don't believe one action per controller is a good thing either.

I would say that if you can't handle a Login, and a Logout action in one controller based on an overzealous SRP gland, you're just not being pragmatic enough.

Also, often times in something like a repository class, partials come in handy all the time; and not due to infrastructure requirements either. Linq statements can become very verbose and sometimes it makes a lot of sense to split the class into partials purely for the sake of readability. And no, creating another repo just because of a verbose syntax, citing SRP as a reason is not a good answer there either.

re: Single Action per Controller in ASP.NET MVC

Jak Charlton — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:49:01 GMT

Partial classes should only ever be used by code generation

Splitting code arbitrarily across files just to increase readability is masking another problem and creating more problems - if it's too long/complex to read easily in one file, it's probably breaking SoC, SRP and a whole bunch of other good practices

But mostly, this is about splitting responsibility - there should be only one reason for a class to change - and a controller with even fairly closely related methods has many reasons for change

re: Single Action per Controller in ASP.NET MVC

Quooston — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:53:43 GMT

+1 for partial classes for better organization.

re: Single Action per Controller in ASP.NET MVC

tobi — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:42:42 GMT

1) and 2) can be solved by training - be pragmatic, not obsessive. 3) is harder. I solved it by using a base class receiving a bunch of common services by property injection and extending the action invoker to inject dependencies as method parameters.

re: Single Action per Controller in ASP.NET MVC

jrnail23 — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:10:48 GMT

Hi Jak, good to see someone else exploring this approach as well. Here's a link to Derek Greer's discussion of single action controllers, which also asks and answers some interesting questions: lostechies.com/.../single-action-controllers-with-asp-net-mvc

re: Single Action per Controller in ASP.NET MVC

Jon Galloway — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:57:31 GMT

While it doesn't help at all with SRP issues (cases of overly complex controllers and constructor overload abuse), if you want to split up actions among multiple files for readability you can just split a controller into partial classes.

re: Single Action per Controller in ASP.NET MVC

Mike — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:25:28 GMT

is this smart, or just plain trickery?

1) Use a single .cs file with separate controller classes

2) Use a single .cs file with a single class with several nested controller classes.

I experimented with each but it's more about code organisation...

re: Single Action per Controller in ASP.NET MVC

Martin — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:05:03 GMT

I took a similar approach with the Tinyweb framework I wrote, where a Handler class can have Get/Post/Put/Delete methods only and the handler class itself determines the URL.

From your example, IndexHandler, LogonHandler and LogoffHandler would produce /index, /logon and /logoff respectively and force the pattern you mention.

You can find the project here if you're interested: github.com/.../Tinyweb

re: Single Action per Controller in ASP.NET MVC

Jak Charlton — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:37:07 GMT

1) You don't end up with massive controller classes

2) Due to the relative verbosity of C#, a controller class is mostly filled with blank lines and braces (controllers should have almost no logic). I find that doing this lets me concentrate easily on the actual functionality and not have to scan a lot of whitespace

3) and most important of all - you don't do things like overloading constructors with a dozen services or repositories to support every operation - you can focus on the single responsibility the controller action really has. SRP FTW :)

re: Single Action per Controller in ASP.NET MVC

hazzik — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:26:14 GMT

What advantages of this approach?

re: What is Domain Driven Design?

Technology — Fri, 20 May 2011 08:15:38 GMT

Fantastic article. Well elaborated and also to the point.

So, the Domain expert, is not really the project champion, he is an expert in the line of business who knows the intricacies involved within the business domain, it's chanllenges and what is expected of the technical or development team to cater and solve business requirements.