Can I ask did you bring up these issues in a retrospective for the team to discuss?

There should be nothing stopping you from talking to your colleagues outside of the stand up to further discuss issues. If there are things which are a problem and could stop the team delivering working software then the standup is the place to raise this since everybody who is interested in the project succeeding should be there, however, it isn't the place for a full blown discussion of an issues. One of the main things about any agile process is visibility into what's happening, so what work people are doing, how the project is progressing, problems, etc but depending on size of your team(s) not everybody present may need to participate in discussions about specifics so having "sidebars" is the right thing to do.

From the all knowing Wikipedia: A facade is an object that provides a simplified interface to a larger body of code, such as a class library. A facade can: - make a software library easier to use, understand and test, since the facade has convenient methods for common tasks; - make the library more readable, for the same reason; Certainly sounds like its a facade based on that definition :)

Isn't it just a simple Facade pattern?

If you are looking at the Technical Blog FAQ it states that the minimum length for any article is 500 words where as if you look at "Add Your Technical Blog" page it states that the minimum length is 1000 words. Which is it?

Thanks PIEBALDconsult both of those answers may be of some use, I must admit to leaning towards the dictionary simply because its a) simple b) can hold as many statuses as the user may want to create. Admittedly not sure how the end developer may interact with the dictionary but perhaps thats me just being dumb as not coded it yet. :)

No subtype just different property values. But what I wanted to do is present to users of my class library the values in a form something akin to an enum so that if they create an object and need to set the status of it you wouldn't have to use some sort of 'magic string'

I'm working with a third party web service that exposes a status property on one of its classes but this property is in fact another class itself. Whilst this is no great shakes I'm trying to make use of this web service easier for other developers in the company since the web service is abstracted away and we have our own adapter classes exposing just the properties/methods we need and I have been trying to come up with a way that will allow me to treat the status object much like a enum What I would like to end up with is something like object.status = StatusAdapter.<value> which would allow something along the lines of if(foo.Status == StatusAdapter.NotStarted){...} Before anybody says 'simply use an enum' the reason I am not simply using an enum is that the status data that the web service object represents can be added to by a user at any time which means that I need to create all relevant classes required at run-time. If I used an enum I'd have to change the class library and re-deploy to all applications that use it. I cannot use an interface as was suggested here [^] simply because the consumers of the class library will not be the ones extending the list of statuses they are just needing to use the statuses I provide. Any ideas?

Might be an idea to check out the licensing around SSRS, I know that we are looking to expose SSRS to external i.e. not our company users, and you then need to look at processor licensing I believe which can be expensive.

I'm currently in the process of refactoring a web app to make it more testable and have posted here about it. I've managed to move forward a lot but now I'm in the situation where I perform the dependency injection on the constructor or via setting properties and the number of items needed is increasing e.g. Membership, state management, meta data provider etc. Although I could look at using static classes within the assembly I need to provide the implementation to be used from outside the assembly e.g. web app creates instance of class providing the relative dependancies and I am also concerned about the testability of static classes. Any suggestions about approaches I could take or patterns I could follow would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for that Mark, works a treat. Knew it must have been something simple I was missing.

Hi Jon, I tried to email you via the link but don't know if its working. Hoping you'll get notified of this as could do with discussing the architecture. You can get me at nathans.FICTICIOUSVALUE.dropbox@NONSENSEVALUE.googlemail.RANDOMVALUE.com I'll leave you to sort out the email address ;)

What has been worrying me is more senior experienced programmers starting to do it. Brought back horrible memories of VB6 variant

I am currently creating a service that allows files to be streamed to it, which works fine, the issue I have is that there are other short running tasks such as IsServiceAvailable that just return a bool and I would like to use non-streaming binding. When I test the service I have no issues streaming files but as soon as I try to connect to the non-streaming endpoint I get the following error:

An error occurred while receiving the HTTP response to
http://localhost:3215/Standard. This could be due to the service endpoint binding not using the HTTP protocol.
This could also be due to an HTTP request context being aborted by the server (possibly due to the service shutting down).
See server logs for more details.

If I then look at the inner exception I find the following:

Unable to read data from the transport connection: An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host.

Which in turn has the inner exception:

An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host

I am a bit mystified by this since at the point I am calling the service no other connections are in existence, as far as I know. I have included my service config below and I hope somebody can spot why I keep getting the error as I'm scratching my head here. Its probably something obvious but I just can't see it. This is a WCF Application project with a WinForms test harness running in VS2008 professional using the inbuilt dev web server on .Net 3.5 framework.

<system.serviceModel>
<services>
<service behaviorConfiguration="standard" name="FileService.FileTransfer">
<endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration=""
name="mex" contract="FileService.IFileTransfer" />
<endpoint address="http://localhost:3215/FileTransfer" binding="basicHttpBinding"
bindingConfiguration="httpStream" name="Transfer" contract="FileService.IFileTransfer" />
<endpoint address="http://localhost:3215/Standard" binding="basicHttpBinding"
bindingConfiguration="Standard" name="Standard" contract="FileService.IFileTransfer" />
<host>
<baseAddresses>
<add baseAddress="http://localhost:3215/Standard" />
<add baseAddress="http://localhost:3215/FileTransfer" />
</baseAddresses>
</host>
</service>
</services>
<bindings>
<basicHttpBinding>
<binding name

Since the var keyword has been introduced for anonymous types I have noticed more and more code examples (and seen in my work) people using var rather than a defined type. To my mind var should only be used when an anonymous type is being used and only then not instead of a defined type. What are peoples thoughts? are you seeing a rise in the use of var?

That would be greatly appreciated Jon. 'bout to pack it in this evening but sure can arrange time when both of us are around :)

Jon, thanks for all the help, I had one of those moments where I thought I knew what I was doing and in a few simple sentances I realise how wrong I was. I would like to continue the 'conversation' about this but not sure the forum is the best place for this. Thanks again for all the help.

ok I understand the problem. Here's a small representation of the objects: AuthorisationLogic (used for authorising work in the model) - Property UnreleasedSummary (bound by page) - Method: GetUnreleasedSummary (called by page and results stored in property). The actual data returned is an object graph which consists of: WorkItem (a container for work to authorise for a user) this in turn contains a List<WorkItemData>. A WorkItemData object has details about the actual work that has been done and needs to be authorised and also contains a property List<Commands> with each command holding the name of the specific stored procedure to call to authorise an individual WorkItemData instance. A WorkItemData can also hold the actual data that is being authorised for the user to review in another List and this will be bound to in the View. Thats a one of the simple interactions hope I've put in enough details. I can tell you that the original reason that for a lot of data being stored in session was so that additional calls to the database could be avoided.

ok here's the details: The current application effecively has View and model but no presenter but the app does generally follow good OOP with SoC, Single Responsibility, Create don't use etc. All business logic and db access is handled in the model which is in a seperate assembly and has been created as a domain model. A fair amount of model information is accessed through properties which store their data in session (the model is closer to a desktop type app than a web app). The code behind's of the pages mostly data bind to the properties exposed by the model although there is a lot of logic around controlling the UI (including a hack of the treeview to add a link to child nodes). Whilst ViewState is not disabled it is generally not used for storing of any particular stateful information. One reason for the need to store the stateful information is that the application is generally driven by meta data so that when different clients access the application the app points to a different database and calls different stored procedures when working the data. We use code from Phil Haack for simulating HttpSession to allow us to perform unit tests on the model, and we have fairly good coverage over the classes. The application works well enough but it seems a good candidate for refactoring as its fairly simple but meaty enough to present a challenge.

You've hit my situation on the head, said I was being a bit thick earlier today couldn't even explain the situation I'm in very well. In work we have moved to an agile way of working involving a lot of TDD and that is one of the main drivers for looking to try and move to a MVP style of development. The state issue is a concern because we do use session for storing some info and currently we have to reference System.Web in our existing equivilant of the model and this is one of the main issues I need to try and overcome before being able to implement MVP. Any thoughts you've got would be appreciated.