<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Domains available</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2012/02/11/domains-available/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2012/02/11/domains-available/</link>
	<description>Software development, testing, and techie life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:19:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: GoDaddy.com</title>
		<link>http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2012/02/11/domains-available/#comment-1489</link>
		<dc:creator>GoDaddy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/?p=321#comment-1489</guid>
		<description>Hey Chad, a couple of developers at Go Daddy sent this post my way. I&#039;m disappointed to hear you&#039;re moving away, but want to offer to help with any of your Go Daddy services, ease the transition or just take some of your feedback - from you or any other of the Los Techies bloggers. 

- James (@godaddy on Twitter) </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Chad, a couple of developers at Go Daddy sent this post my way. I&#8217;m disappointed to hear you&#8217;re moving away, but want to offer to help with any of your Go Daddy services, ease the transition or just take some of your feedback &#8211; from you or any other of the Los Techies bloggers. </p>
<p>- James (@godaddy on Twitter) </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chad Myers</title>
		<link>http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2012/02/11/domains-available/#comment-1487</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad Myers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/?p=321#comment-1487</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not just ideological purity, it&#039;s actually quite practical. When we first started our project using ASP.NET MVC 2 Beta, we needed to tweak something in the way a route was determined, in another controller how some of the model binding worked, and overall how the result of controller action was passed to a view  (we wanted to do one-model-in, one-model-out).  

Most of these things were handled in rather long methods in the base Controller class.  If you wanted to tweak one line of code, you necessarily had to override a 300-line method which constituted 50% of the functionality of MVC&#039;s model binding (or something like that).

By the time we had changed just those three things (something we used to refer to as Opinionated MVC -- google for some videos of talks we gave), we had replaced more than 75% of ASP.NET MVC (by one reckoning).

I hope things have gotten better in MVC3 and now MVC4, but I imagine the fundamental problems are still there and it is still difficult to override something small without necessarily having to override something big.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not just ideological purity, it&#8217;s actually quite practical. When we first started our project using ASP.NET MVC 2 Beta, we needed to tweak something in the way a route was determined, in another controller how some of the model binding worked, and overall how the result of controller action was passed to a view  (we wanted to do one-model-in, one-model-out).  </p>
<p>Most of these things were handled in rather long methods in the base Controller class.  If you wanted to tweak one line of code, you necessarily had to override a 300-line method which constituted 50% of the functionality of MVC&#8217;s model binding (or something like that).</p>
<p>By the time we had changed just those three things (something we used to refer to as Opinionated MVC &#8212; google for some videos of talks we gave), we had replaced more than 75% of ASP.NET MVC (by one reckoning).</p>
<p>I hope things have gotten better in MVC3 and now MVC4, but I imagine the fundamental problems are still there and it is still difficult to override something small without necessarily having to override something big.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Rackis</title>
		<link>http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2012/02/11/domains-available/#comment-1486</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Rackis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/?p=321#comment-1486</guid>
		<description>Hi Chad.  Would you mind clarifying one thing from your web frameworks post  
http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2011/12/30/sweet-sweet-vindication/ 

After reading your post I do now realize that the base Controller class in asp.net mvc is a violation of SRP, but I&#039;m not sure I understand why that matters.  It seems like just a convenient, simple base class that MS is giving me that supports most if not all of the things I would need my controller to do—render a view, render a parital view, render an action, etc etc.

I can understand why *I* shouldn&#039;t write a huge class that does multiple things, since that&#039;ll make maintenance harder down the road.  But what specific maintenance problems can I honestly expect from this base controller class that MS wrote?  Or is this just ideological purity?  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Chad.  Would you mind clarifying one thing from your web frameworks post  <br />
<a href="http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2011/12/30/sweet-sweet-vindication/ " rel="nofollow">http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2011/12/30/sweet-sweet-vindication/ </a></p>
<p>After reading your post I do now realize that the base Controller class in asp.net mvc is a violation of SRP, but I&#8217;m not sure I understand why that matters.  It seems like just a convenient, simple base class that MS is giving me that supports most if not all of the things I would need my controller to do—render a view, render a parital view, render an action, etc etc.</p>
<p>I can understand why *I* shouldn&#8217;t write a huge class that does multiple things, since that&#8217;ll make maintenance harder down the road.  But what specific maintenance problems can I honestly expect from this base controller class that MS wrote?  Or is this just ideological purity?  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gleb</title>
		<link>http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2012/02/11/domains-available/#comment-1485</link>
		<dc:creator>Gleb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/?p=321#comment-1485</guid>
		<description>Hello Chad
I&#039;d like whackcoder</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Chad<br />
I&#8217;d like whackcoder</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
