Re: [Springnet-developer] Object creation invokingprotectedconstructors?

[Erich E. <E.E...@di...>]

Hi,
=20
Personally I'm also not a big fan of making everything internal. Even =
more, I think that writing tests for my classes *outside* the assembly =
is a really good way for driving the design. I *want* my tests to =
influence the design (that's what TDD is all about I guess).=20
=20
Although I think Spring should somewhat enforce what we think are best =
practices, the world is not always ideal and there are situations where =
I wished that Spring supported accessing non-public code.
=20
-Erich
=20
=20


________________________________

	From: spr...@li... =
[mailto:spr...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Bruno Baia
	Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 2:02 PM
	To: Erich Eichinger
	Cc: springnet-developer
	Subject: Re: [Springnet-developer] Object creation =
invokingprotectedconstructors?
=09
=09
	Hi,
	=20
	To do that, Microsoft uses their new feature in .NET 2.0 : the =
InternalsVisibleTo attribute to specify the assembly to which all =
nonpublic types are to be made visible. (Take a look to =
System.ServiceModel.dll for an example.)=20
	I've also read somewhere MS uses reflection to testes non visible =
classes too.
	=20
	Anyway, I'm really not a fan of that InternalsVisibleToAttribute =
because everything becomes internal now...
	=20
	=20
	Bruno
=09
	=20
	2007/9/11, Erich Eichinger <E.E...@di...>:=20

		Hi Stepen,
		=20
		playing the "advocatus diaboli" now: How do you write tests for this =
class then? If your design does not allow for instantiating the class, =
why should Spring be allowed to?=20
		=20
		-Erich


________________________________

			From: spr...@li... =
[mailto:spr...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Trudel, Stephen
			Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:40 PM
			To: Erich Eichinger; springnet-developer
			Subject: Re: [Springnet-developer] Object creation invokingprotected =
constructors?
		=09
			=20
		=09
			Related question ... does Spring.Net support object construction for =
objects with internal constructors?  If one does not want the =
instantiation of an object to be allowed outside the scope of a module =
for purposes of conceptual integrity or otherwise then Spring.Net  =
should support its construction in my opinion ... seem somewhat awkward =
when class design is influenced by a framework ...=20
		=09
			=20
________________________________

			From: spr...@li... =
[mailto:spr...@li...] On Behalf Of =
Erich Eichinger
			Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 6:36 AM
			To: springnet-developer
			Subject: [Springnet-developer] Object creation invoking protected =
constructors?
		=09
			=20
			Steinar on the forum asked this here: =
http://forum.springframework.net/showthread.php?t=3D3448
			=20
			I'd like to revisit the design decision to not allow accessing =
non-public types/constructors/methods/properties and hear your opinions =
on this.=20
			=20
			I recently ran into this issue myself when trying to provide a DI =
capable wrapper for "System.Web.UI.SimpleHandlerFactory" from System.Web =
assembly. This type is internal and can't be instantiated using Spring =
which required to implement a (non-trivial) workaround. The easy way =
would be to remove the restriction to public types.=20
			=20
			I know of opinions out there to don't enforce any restrictions within =
the framework. Developers should know what they are doing and if someone =
wants to instantiate a non-public type, let him do it at his own risk.=20
			=20
			Other opinions?
			=20
			cheers,
			Erich
			=20


		=
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

		This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
		Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.=20
		http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
		_______________________________________________=20
		Springnet-developer mailing list
		Spr...@li...
		https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springnet-developer
	=09
	=09