Thanks David, you and aside from a few others are the only people who actually answered my actualy question. I only wanted to know if people found it odd and whether or not they've done it before.
Although I do think it's not necessarily a bad idea, as I mentioned it's a similar idea in MVC, when you use the HTML helpers and using lambda expression's. I just never thought I'd do in this context. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:50 AM, David Kean <david.k...@microsoft.com>wrote: > Yep searching for both those terms together in your favourite search engine > will return a lot of good results. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:37 PM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: ASP.NET Control databinding, member properties, dynamically > fetch property name? > > Thank you. > > What is the name of concept we are dealing with here, "Lambda" and > "Property Binding ? > > On 27 May 2010 06:23, David Kean <david.k...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Here's an example: > > > > class Property > > { > > private readonly PropertyInfo _propertyInfo; > > > > public Property(LambdaExpression property) > > { > > Requires.NotNull(property, "property"); > > > > var body = property.Body as MemberExpression; > > if (body == null) > > throw new ArgumentException("'property' should be a > > MemberException"); > > > > _propertyInfo = (PropertyInfo)body.Member; > > } > > > > public string Name > > { > > get { return _propertyInfo.Name; } > > } > > > > public PropertyInfo PropertyInfo > > { > > get { return _propertyInfo; } > > } > > > > public static implicit operator string(Property property) > > { > > return property.Name; > > } > > > > public static implicit operator PropertyInfo(Property property) > > { > > return property.PropertyInfo; > > } > > > > public static Property Of(Expression<Func<object>> property) > > { > > return new Property(property); > > } > > > > public static Property Of<T>(Expression<Func<T, object>> > > property) > > { > > return new Property(property); > > } > > } > > > > You can then use this: > > > > Foo foo = ... > > > > DisplayMember = Property.Of(() => foo.Bar); > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com > > [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi > > Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 1:10 PM > > To: ozDotNet > > Subject: Re: ASP.NET Control databinding, member properties, dynamically > fetch property name? > > > > Do you have some links or examples for us to look at? (For winforms too > would be good) What are the goodness than one can benefit from. Are there > any programming tools that are can be used with this? > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Arjang > > > > On 27 May 2010 01:51, David Kean <david.k...@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> I'm really interesting in hearing why people think this is a bad idea. > >> I've done this in a few code bases (not ASP.NET, but WinForms) and it > >> nothing but pure goodness from my perspective. > >> > >> > >> > >> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com > >> [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] > >> On Behalf Of Stephen Price > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 3:10 AM > >> To: ozDotNet > >> Subject: Re: ASP.NET Control databinding, member properties, > >> dynamically fetch property name? > >> > >> > >> > >> So often those things are black and white. They can be done one way, > >> and the other way can be argued wrong. But then on the other hand > >> there are reasons why the other way can be right. > >> > >> > >> > >> When I come across people who believe in the inverse of myself it's > >> usually in the middle of something that needs to get done. Arguing > >> the point would lose time so I let it slide. Put it in the "do be > >> discussed later over a beer or food" where the full ramifications and > >> spiritual benefits of such code can be truly enjoyed. If all your > >> codebase was the way you'd write it then you might as well have > >> written it yourself. You can still be a craftsman and care about what > >> you do. :) > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Winston Pang <winstonp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Sorry, I think I didn't make it clear, the person who asked me us to > >> do this was a Senior Developer on their team. They too could be > >> lurking these mailing list, which would be cool if they replied too! > >> :D > >> > >> So it's not so much about educating them... I'm sure they are "Senior" > >> enough to know the ramifications, consdidering I did outline, it's > >> uncommon and also quite redundant. But anyways, there's no winner, > >> even if you outline all the cons to this, they are also a programmer > >> too, have you ever had disputes with other developers other doing one > thing over another way? > >> Sometimes it gets resolved, sometimes people are just way too stubborn. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Arjang Assadi > >> <arjang.ass...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Or > >> > >> Just an opportunity to do something different, that is what they want > >> that is what we will give them, or even better ask them why? where > >> did they get the idea to have it like that from and understand their > >> real concerns that has facilitated the odd requirements, maybe there > >> is method to their madness or maybe they have misunderstood something > >> and need to be helped out of it. > >> > >> No client knows really what they want, only what they think that they > >> want, we (the programmers) are their guides and confidants, we (as > >> programmers) have to hold their hands and help them out, after all if > >> we don't then who will? > >> > >> Please ask and find out their real problem and what will satisfaction > >> of this requirement give them, and report back here! :) > >> > >> Let's find out the real problem. > >> > >> Kind Regards > >> > >> Arjang > >> > >> On 26 May 2010 14:12, Winston Pang <winstonp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >
