|
Yes it's a programming question, but wait a moment, I am NOT asking to solve any problem here, I am asking to select your favourite of 2 options.
I think what they want me to do here at work is disgusting. I have to suck it up anyway, since it's the guy who accepts pull request that tells me to do it, period. But I am curious whether or not I am in good company with my prejudice.
It's about DTO, constructors with zillion of parameters and all private properties.
code I prefer and put in my pull request, with 24 properties (i.e large number of properties)
public class FooDto
{
public T1 Property1 { get; set; }
public T24 Property24 { get; set; }
}
class MyFooClass
{
private T1 property1;
private T24 property24;
public FooDto ToDto()
{
return new FooDto()
{
Property1 = property1,
Property24 = property24,
};
}
}
how I have asked to rewrite the code, feels disgusting to me, but curious how many people share, or dislike, my opinion
public class FooDto
{
public FooDto(T1 value1 , T24 value24)
{
Property1 = value1;
Property24 = value24;
}
public T1 Property1 { get; }
public T24 Property24 { get; }
}
class MyFooClass
{
private T1 property1;
private T24 property24;
public FooDto ToDto()
{
return new FooDto(property1 , property24);
}
}
In his defence he has an argument. If someone use that DTO as well, the compiler will force them to initialise all values.
Though one could counter argument that we got unit test for just that.
At any rate, which of those 2 is your favourite code style?
|
|
|
|
|
Option 1, but I do see the argument for option 2, especially if the properties are mandatory.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, using reasonable defaults would prevent you from having runaway parameter lists for your constructors, and all you have to do is set the properties that need to be changed.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest I'd probably have a separate mapper to do the conversion, but of the 2 I'd go 1, once you're over a handful of parameters in a constructor it gets messy.
|
|
|
|
|
When a method has more than, say, four arguments, I strongly dislike it, its author, and the Italian governement.
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: dislike ... the Italian governement.
I thought that was mandatory in Italy, regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would go for option 1.
I would also look at having some sort of mapping functionality so that the values can be populated 'automatically' by passing the DTO to some form of orchestrator together with the data source to populate it.
The following in option 2 is a huge code smell:
public FooDto(T1 value1 , T24 value24)
I have done this myself in the past but it is generally accepted nowadays that a large number of parameters in a signature is a bad idea.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 30-Oct-18 4:35am.
|
|
|
|
|
I fail to see what the big deal is about, but if I get to choose I prefer 1.
I don't like huge constructors, they are slightly more error prone.
|
|
|
|
|
Option 1 because it is cleaner, more understandable and more extensible of the two options.
|
|
|
|
|
Option 1.
Agree that Too much parameters in Option 2 is terrible one. Too much parameters require changes in other places(Ex: Business Logic layer, Code-behind, etc.,) when you need to remove/add parameters later.
|
|
|
|
|
Really blow his mind. Make the constructor accept a Tuple instead.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
that's a good one! 
in fact it might the easiest way how to go about it.. by that I mean I can implement that with some quick copy paste...
whereas implementing the constructor is going to be manually intensive and bug prone! 
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: In his defence he has an argument. If someone use that DTO as well, the compiler will force them to initialise all values.
Yeah, initialization does not inherently mean useful values, so why force lazy coders to initialize meaningless values?
var dto = new FooDto(actualT1Val,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null);
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I might add a couple of unit test just like that, for giggle... 
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mind either option, but I think I like v1 better.
When it comes to long lists of assignments I generally copy/paste back and forth with an instance of Excel.
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: select your favourite of 2 options.
I prefer favorite.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
I live in Australia..... I am giving in the local area grammar Nazi...  
|
|
|
|
|
Down-vote! 
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend; inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. One does not "force" all or none.
The constructor-parameters are added for all variables that the object needs before it can initialize. Any other option that can be set later should be a public property. If you have more than three parameters, consider creating a class for them and to pass the thing to the constructor.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
it's a DTO, i.e. all those could be field really (except it would sparkle another argument). No code is either run into that class, just a bag of well known property....
|
|
|
|
|
The same still applies; anything that is required should be there in the constructor. If it is not required for the objects existence, then it becomes a property. For a DTO, I'd expect an Id-field, and without an Id such object should not exist.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. It shouldn't be the responsiblity of MyFooClass to return a FooDto, it should be FooDto's class to take a MyFooClass and convert it to a FooDto.
So you have instead:
public class FooDto
{
public static FooDto From(MyFooClass c)
{
}
}
And to make this more re-usable for different data objects and to avoid repeating From for every type of "from - to" conversion, use interfaces:
public class FooDto : IFooDto
{
public static IFooDto From(IFooClass c)
{
}
}
This promotes consistency between properties in FooDto and properties in the "from" class that can be mapped to FooDto.
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Of the two choices given, I'd take 1; but would prefer a third option.:
public class FooDto
{
public FooDto(MyFooClass foo)
{
Property1 = foo.property1;
Property24 = foo.property24;
}
public T1 Property1 { get; }
public T24 Property24 { get; }
}
class MyFooClass
{
private T1 property1;
private T24 property24;
}
If for some reason I
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
