Comments on: Common Interfaces for Tool Families http://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families/ Just another LosTechies site Wed, 27 May 2009 23:01:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Brian DeMarzo http://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families/#comment-74 Brian DeMarzo Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:35:28 +0000 /blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families.aspx#comment-74 I actually played around with this concept a few times, making a wrapper for typical functions (logging, caching, even tried repositories) in a single project who's intent was to do nothing but standardize and let you change the underlying framework without changing your code. It's on Google Code: http://code.google.com/p/nwrapper It was a based on a wrapper I developed around Paul Wilson's O/R Mapper (http://code.google.com/p/wilsonormapper). I actually played around with this concept a few times, making a wrapper for typical functions (logging, caching, even tried repositories) in a single project who’s intent was to do nothing but standardize and let you change the underlying framework without changing your code. It’s on Google Code: http://code.google.com/p/nwrapper

It was a based on a wrapper I developed around Paul Wilson’s O/R Mapper (http://code.google.com/p/wilsonormapper).

]]> By: Brian DeMarzo http://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families/#comment-73 Brian DeMarzo Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:34:09 +0000 /blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families.aspx#comment-73 I actually played around with this concept a few times, making a wrapper for typical functions (logging, caching, even tried repositories) in a single project who's intent was to do nothing but standardize and let you change the underlying framework without changing your code. It's on Google Code: http://code.google.com/p/nwrapper It was a based on a wrapper I developed around Paul Wilson's O/R Mapper (http://code.google.com/p/wilsonormapper). I actually played around with this concept a few times, making a wrapper for typical functions (logging, caching, even tried repositories) in a single project who’s intent was to do nothing but standardize and let you change the underlying framework without changing your code. It’s on Google Code: http://code.google.com/p/nwrapper

It was a based on a wrapper I developed around Paul Wilson’s O/R Mapper (http://code.google.com/p/wilsonormapper).

]]> By: Brian DeMarzo http://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families/#comment-72 Brian DeMarzo Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:33:53 +0000 /blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families.aspx#comment-72 I actually played around with this concept a few times, making a wrapper for typical functions (logging, caching, even tried repositories) in a single project who's intent was to do nothing but standardize and let you change the underlying framework without changing your code. It's on Google Code: http://code.google.com/p/nwrapper It was a based on a wrapper I developed around Paul Wilson's O/R Mapper (http://code.google.com/p/wilsonormapper). I actually played around with this concept a few times, making a wrapper for typical functions (logging, caching, even tried repositories) in a single project who’s intent was to do nothing but standardize and let you change the underlying framework without changing your code. It’s on Google Code: http://code.google.com/p/nwrapper

It was a based on a wrapper I developed around Paul Wilson’s O/R Mapper (http://code.google.com/p/wilsonormapper).

]]> By: Steve Sheldon http://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families/#comment-71 Steve Sheldon Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:16:17 +0000 /blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families.aspx#comment-71 Isn't the reason why you have multiple different solutions to some problem is because they offer something different in terms of functionality? As such, how can you ever really have a common interface? Any interface will merely support the lowest common denominator of functionality. This is why the natural movement in computing is to standardize on one piece of software. Isn’t the reason why you have multiple different solutions to some problem is because they offer something different in terms of functionality?

As such, how can you ever really have a common interface? Any interface will merely support the lowest common denominator of functionality.

This is why the natural movement in computing is to standardize on one piece of software.

]]> By: Jarda http://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families/#comment-70 Jarda Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:15:00 +0000 /blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families.aspx#comment-70 For logging there is: http://netcommon.sourceforge.net/ For logging there is:
http://netcommon.sourceforge.net/

]]> By: DoniG http://lostechies.com/colinramsay/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families/#comment-69 DoniG Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:54:27 +0000 /blogs/colin_ramsay/archive/2008/11/13/common-interfaces-for-tool-families.aspx#comment-69 For IoC, there is the CommonServiceLocator. http://www.codeplex.com/CommonServiceLocator For IoC, there is the CommonServiceLocator.

http://www.codeplex.com/CommonServiceLocator

]]>