Well, firstly. The client is govt, and we're really dealing with their internal IT team, who would eventually do supporting for the system.
I have no say in whether we do it or not, I've told them, it's redundant, and uncommon, and a bit too much. I've done all I can, can't fight anymore about it. I just wanted to see what people though of it, I quite frankly think it's stupid and unnecessary. On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:05 PM, mike smith <meski...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 May 2010 08:35, Winston Pang <winstonp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > > > This is more of a question of whether or not this sounds feasible and has > > anyone seen anyone do this: > > > > > > Typically with most ASP.NET controls, lets take the ComboBox for an > example, > > it'll be like > > > > this.comboBox.DataSource = someList; > > this.comboBox.DisplayMember = "Property1"; > > this.comboBox.ValueMember = "Property2"; > > > > The client we're dealing with, has specifically told us to not > "hard-code" > > these property names, and to use reflection, through lambda expressions > to > > derive the property name. > > I find a lot of use can be gained in such cases in asking the client > why they want to do things a certain way at the outset, rather than > blindly doing what they ask. Sounds a lot like COM late binding (aka > everything old is new again) > > > > > Firstly, do you think this will add a lot of overhead? I'm guessing it'll > be > > ok-ish, considering ASP.NET MVC uses it a lot. > > > > Also, has anyone seen people do it this way? > > > > It this a stupid thing to do? I think it has it's merits to an extent, > but > > it sure doesn't seem common to me. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Winston > > > > > > -- > Meski > > "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, > you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills >
