Timeline for Ignoring the generic part of a type while an object is being passed
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6, 2014 at 6:20 | vote | accept | 9a3eedi | ||
| Sep 19, 2014 at 5:49 | comment | added | jhdrn | Well, I don't think using dynamic is wrong per se, but it is not suitable to use in a message because the message can potentially be handled by many handlers and you will loose type checking at as many places. In the solution posted above, you will be using dynamic at one place (you should implement a message "bus" that takes care of resolving and executing handlers). That way, you hide the use of dynamic from the message API and makes life happier for everyone :) | |
| Sep 19, 2014 at 1:13 | comment | added | 9a3eedi | This seems like a potentially great solution, but you still end up using dynamic, as well as some reflection (getType). What I don't understand is why is it "ok" to use it in this case, but not in the message object case? And yes, "payload" is a terrible name :) sorry I couldn't think of a better name | |
| Sep 18, 2014 at 19:33 | history | edited | jhdrn | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 74 characters in body |
| Sep 18, 2014 at 15:31 | comment | added | Benjamin Hodgson | +1, this is exactly what I would've suggested (and indeed it's how we built our platform at my place of work) | |
| Sep 18, 2014 at 11:02 | history | answered | jhdrn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |