User Ratings

★★★★★
★★★★
★★★
★★
0
0
1
0
0
ease 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 3 / 5
features 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 3 / 5
design 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 3 / 5
support 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 3 / 5

Rate This Project
Login To Rate This Project

User Reviews

  • At the very first glance, I sensed a good design and a highly confident architect here, then I peeped in to see how good this design/ the architect is.. Having accepted the fact that the design is simple and quite good for the type of problem you guys were trying to solve at the time, let me also highlight a point I noticed that I don't like about your design.. In your design, I see you letting one of the most important design decisions float at developer desecration, which is bad.. Let me explain it for you.. The generic 'CommandBase' is forced for its derived class to implement the 'Body' method, hence the architect of the 'CommandBase' have forced the poor developer to decide on how to build the 'DbCommand' for it. I thought it is very poor.. In your Test, you quite correctly use the 'AddParamenter' method avoiding 'SQL Injection' to add required parameters, but how you guaranties that a developer would do the same?? What would be the fate of your system if one of your weak developers decides to directly append the parameters to your sql command.. won't your system be a easy target for inexperience hackers... ?? I thought your design could have improve little more to avoid it. What do you think?
  • Previous
  • You're on page 1
  • Next