Interfacing with Insanity

re: Interfacing with Insanity

Kathleen — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:56:47 GMT

There are attributes, and it's a really good idea to take advantage of that control. But if the members are visible, you can't control whether they are used. Thus it is vastly preferable to remove them entirely.

I have overridden classes just so I could override or overload almost all the members and set the attribute to hide them. Pretty silly but sometimes helpful.

re: Interfacing with Insanity

Phil — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:35:45 GMT

IUndoableObject is listed twice.

Aren't are some attributes you can apply to these items to hide them from intellisense?

re: Interfacing with Insanity

Rob — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:26:15 GMT

I don't use CSLA or any other framework for BO, so I cannot address these issues entirely accurately. But, the pattern I have used to do, what seems like similar things, is to use an explicit interface along with extension methods based on the interface. Therefore, you hide the methods/properties of the interface from the average developer, but your extension methods can still recognize that the interface is implemented and thus provide you with the higher level features you need. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your dilemma, but I thought it was a neat pattern worth mentioning anyway.