Entity Translaters and Converters

Jun 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM
In the GlobalBank example solution, translators are used; and in the OrdersManagement example solution, converters are used.   

What is the reason that classes of the same functionality are not consistant with naming?   Shouldn't the composite web standardize on entity translation and provide an interface for this functionality? (suggestion: why not name them Adapters since that is the recognized pattern they follow.)

Thanks in advance

Jun 3, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Unfortunately, these things happen. I am just taking a wild guess that multiple developers worked on the various examples. It can be a significant effort to QA all the examples for things like naming.  I had posted a request regarding Interface vs Interfaces and the answer was they occasionally miss items like this.

Although consistency would be nice, I would prefer the cycles were used to ensure documentation and testing were 100% (this no way means I think there is a deficiency in this area).

Phil

PS I think it is time to review my patterns book again.

rusdawg400 wrote:
In the GlobalBank example solution, translators are used; and in the OrdersManagement example solution, converters are used.   

What is the reason that classes of the same functionality are not consistant with naming?   Shouldn't the composite web standardize on entity translation and provide an interface for this functionality? (suggestion: why not name them Adapters since that is the recognized pattern they follow.)

Thanks in advance




Jun 9, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Edited Jun 9, 2008 at 10:18 PM


pbolduc wrote:
Unfortunately, these things happen. I am just taking a wild guess that multiple developers worked on the various examples. It can be a significant effort to QA all the examples for things like naming.  I had posted a request regarding Interface vs Interfaces and the answer was they occasionally miss items like this.

Although consistency would be nice, I would prefer the cycles were used to ensure documentation and testing were 100% (this no way means I think there is a deficiency in this area).

Phil

PS I think it is time to review my patterns book again.

rusdawg400 wrote:
In the GlobalBank example solution, translators are used; and in the OrdersManagement example solution, converters are used.   

What is the reason that classes of the same functionality are not consistant with naming?   Shouldn't the composite web standardize on entity translation and provide an interface for this functionality? (suggestion: why not name them Adapters since that is the recognized pattern they follow.)

Thanks in advance




I think you should take a look at the Smart Client factory, this provides a better implementation of Entity Translation using services. I think Entity Translation is a better name than Adapter.  An Adapter; adapts or provides an interface for a class for a client. Where Entity Translation converts one set of concrete classes into another set.

Jun 10, 2008 at 1:45 AM
ha.  good point.  The SCSF And the SCBAT used to call them 'Mappers' before they started referencing them as services.  Thanks for your help!!

jamtoday wrote:


pbolduc wrote:
Unfortunately, these things happen. I am just taking a wild guess that multiple developers worked on the various examples. It can be a significant effort to QA all the examples for things like naming.  I had posted a request regarding Interface vs Interfaces and the answer was they occasionally miss items like this.

Although consistency would be nice, I would prefer the cycles were used to ensure documentation and testing were 100% (this no way means I think there is a deficiency in this area).

Phil

PS I think it is time to review my patterns book again.

rusdawg400 wrote:
In the GlobalBank example solution, translators are used; and in the OrdersManagement example solution, converters are used.   

What is the reason that classes of the same functionality are not consistant with naming?   Shouldn't the composite web standardize on entity translation and provide an interface for this functionality? (suggestion: why not name them Adapters since that is the recognized pattern they follow.)

Thanks in advance




I think you should take a look at the Smart Client factory, this provides a better implementation of Entity Translation using services. I think Entity Translation is a better name than Adapter.  An Adapter; adapts or provides an interface for a class for a client. Where Entity Translation converts one set of concrete classes into another set.