Comments for nicholascloud.com

Comment on So you want to be a .NET dev… by ncloud

ncloud — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:05:08 +0000

+1 for Mark’s comment, he’s absolutely right.

Comment on So you want to be a .NET dev… by Mark

Mark — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:27:38 +0000

I would add that there is a difference between being in IT, programming to supplement other business, and being in software, where you are the business. The cultures are different and making the switch can be difficult.

Comment on Nancy (.NET Micro Web Frameworks Part 1) by ncloud

ncloud — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:28:11 +0000

@Oetawan, I’m not really sure about single sign-on. I would recommend asking the question on the NancyFX forums: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/nancy-web-framework

Comment on Nancy (.NET Micro Web Frameworks Part 1) by Oetawan

Oetawan — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 03:53:21 +0000

how to implement single sign on in nancy .net ?

Comment on CQRS and Event Sourcing with NCQRS by CQRS: Links, News and Resources (1) « Angel “Java” Lopez on Blog

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:41:50 +0000

[...] CQRS and Event Sourcing with NCQRS http://www.nicholascloud.com/2011/09/cqrs-and-event-sourcing-with-ncqrs/ [...]

Comment on Naming interfaces by chuck

chuck — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 03:10:08 +0000

It sort of seems like there’s already a naming convention in the names being things that end in “-able”. The “I” seems redundant then. But I suppose “-able” is just a shorter way to say “Can-”… What about a convention that interface names are adjectives?

Comment on Naming interfaces by Christian Horsdal

Christian Horsdal — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:45:53 +0000

I agree that we should get rid of the I prefix, but I also think your Can, Will, Has proposal is to restrictive. I like interface names that names a _thing_. As such to me List would be a fine interface name. Implementation on the other hand should have more specific names like LinkedList or ArrayList.

Comment on Naming interfaces by Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:27:33 +0000

(Those List and IList were supposed to have T after them, but I guess the comment field thought it was HTML.)

Comment on Naming interfaces by Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:26:59 +0000

IAgreeWithJonathan. I see that hideous Impl suffix often in JavaLand, but rarely in .NETLand, because we can have List and IList. If a big part of breaking out dependencies is replacing concrete classes with interfaces, it’s nice to have the “I”s in order to see at a glance how interface-y my code is, or how far I have to go.

Comment on Naming interfaces by ncloud

ncloud — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:36:40 +0000

IList has more behavior than simple index access. I’ve always thought that .NET collections were a big mess, so I think they would need to be re-organized for more behavior-centric interface names to make any sense.

There have always been developers who advocate special prefixes for things. Whether it is “I”, or “m_” or “_”, or “txt”, “bln”, “int”, most, if not all, become unnecessary with modern IDEs. And if you’re programming in the .NET space, you’re using a modern IDE.

I am also against the “Impl” prefix because it really means “not an interface”. But if interfaces are named for behavior, it becomes unnecessary.