[Mono-list] Compiling egg-chicken libraries

[Jaroslaw Kowalski]

This is a killer problem. The actual code from "Objects" is here. I don't
want to pollute it with any unnecessary patterns. No factories, adaptors,
facades.

BTW. Some stubs return instances of business objects. This doesn't look
possible in your case.

=================
namespace Sooda.UnitTests.Objects
{
    using System;
    using System.Collections;
    using System.Diagnostics;
    using System.Data;
    using Sooda;

    public class Contact : Sooda.UnitTests.Objects.Stubs.Contact_Stub
    {
        public Contact(SoodaTransaction transaction) :
                base(transaction)
        {
        }
        public Contact() :
                this(SoodaTransaction.ActiveTransaction)
        {
        }

        public void SomeBusinessMethod()
        {
                if (PrimaryGroup.Manager.Name.StartsWith("John"))
                {
                    Console.WriteLine("Hello John's employee!");

                    if (Roles.Contains(Role.Clerk))
                    {
                        Console.WriteLine("How are you?");
                    }
                }
        }
    }
}
========================

The design is ugly, but makes such a simple syntax possible.

Jarek
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stuart Ballard" <sballard@netreach.com>
To: "Jaroslaw Kowalski" <jaak@zd.com.pl>
Cc: <aranym@adelphia.net>; <mono-list@lists.ximian.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] Compiling egg-chicken libraries


> Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote:
> > I need (as an option) this for my O/R mapping software because I want to
be
> > able to use mutliple languages.
> >
> > I have:
> >
> > 1. "Stubs" assembly - written in C# - that must be able to create
objects
> > from "Objects" assembly to represent 1-1 relations and 1-N relations.
> > 2. "Objects" assembly - written in some other language whose classes
inherit
> > from the appropriate classes in "Stubs" assembly
> >
> > So I have a mutual dependency here. But as I've said this is optional.
If
> > you stict to C# you have just a single assembly with no
interdependencies.
>
> Sounds like what you need is an IObjectCreator interface, defined in
> Stubs and implemented in Objects.
>
> eg, in the Stubs assembly:
>
> public interface IObjectCreator {
>    object CreateObject();
> }
> public class FooStub {
>    IObjectCreator ioc;
>
>    void Twiddle() {
>      object o = ioc.CreateObject();
>      // do something with o
>    }
> }
>
>
> in the Objects assembly:
>
> public class Foo : FooStub {
>    class FooCreator : IObjectCreator {
>      public object CreateObject() {return new Foo();}
>    }
>    public Foo() {
>      ioc = new FooCreator();
>    }
> }
>
> The only problem is the need to explicitly define FooCreator for each
> class by hand. Depending on your circumstances, that may or may not be a
> killer problem.
>
> Stuart.
>
> -- 
> Stuart Ballard, Senior Web Developer
> NetReach, Inc.
> (215) 283-2300, ext. 126
> http://www.netreach.com/
>