Timeline for What is the benefit to having pure POCO models?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2017 at 8:49 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSoftEng/status/873462223481516032 | ||
| Jun 6, 2017 at 12:53 | comment | added | Jesse | @Casey I'm not using the Active Record pattern, the add method is simply doing some minor data validation. The remove method is there because the collection is not exposed, they simply add and remove from an internal list. I have changed it though to use a different collection type that allows me to do the validation while still using the built in Add/Remove methods. | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 17:06 | comment | added | Frank Hileman | The main reason to avoid this particular design is because it goes against the .net design guidelines. It is completely arbitrary, but people expect the collection to have the mutating methods in it. | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 17:03 | comment | added | Casey | If you've ever dealt with the headache of ActiveRecord classes with hundreds of methods that may or may not be what you want at any given time I think it'd be easier to understand the appeal. | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 15:10 | answer | added | John M Gant | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 14:03 | vote | accept | Jesse | ||
| Jun 5, 2017 at 12:51 | comment | added | GHP | I'd remove the Add/Remove methods unless they add some value, like translating a null ClassB argument into a NullObject pattern version of the object: AddChild(ClassB newChild) => Children.Add(newChild ?? new NullClassB()) | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 12:12 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 10, 2017 at 3:01 | |||||
| Jun 5, 2017 at 7:00 | answer | added | Martin Maat | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 4:44 | answer | added | candied_orange | timeline score: 44 | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 3:42 | history | asked | Jesse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |