Re: Interchangeable object strategy needed.
From: Alexander Nickolov (agnickolov_at_mvps.org)
Date: 06/15/04
- Previous message: Alexander Nickolov: "Re: DCOM not working on XP"
- In reply to: BobforeApples: "Interchangeable object strategy needed."
- Next in thread: BobforeApples: "Re: Interchangeable object strategy needed."
- Reply: BobforeApples: "Re: Interchangeable object strategy needed."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:26:12 -0700
I believe your problem is you do not abstract the packages
properly. Express their functionality in terms your application
uses, not in terms of their exposed interfaces. IIRC, the design
pattern you are implementing is called Adapter.
-- ===================================== Alexander Nickolov Microsoft MVP [VC], MCSD email: agnickolov@mvps.org MVP VC FAQ: http://www.mvps.org/vcfaq ===================================== "BobforeApples" <BobforeApples@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:71DF1F4B-3515-4943-B4DB-DCFF5CC822D6@microsoft.com... > Hello, > > I need some input on a better way to handle interchangeable objects. > > Background: We have an application that acts as a front-end to several Chromatography packages from several manufacturers. Each application has some method of accessing data/automating commands, but the methods differ from one package to the next. These methods are DDE/Flat files, DDE, and Com/ActiveX. I currently have three COM objects written in VB that are based on an interface also defined in VB (empty shell object). In addition, I have a fourth class that acts as a connection object/object server/event sink for the "ActiveGC" objects. > > The above works OK but is a pain to maintain. Any change, not matter how trivial seems to require a complete chain of recompiles and the resulting redistibution of all objects. I've tried enforcing compatibility using reference files, but some object always seems to lose track of the other objects and then "here we go again!" > > The Problem: A better understanding of how sequences are handled in GC software (or at least a better understanding of how to reconcile the vendor's differences) forces me to make interface level changes to the object model. I'd like to take the opportunity to fix the whole scheme so that it's easier to support. > > I'd like to switch to .NET, but our company has mandated that .NET development will be done in C#. My inexperience with C# and an apparent lack of support for DDE in .NET forces me to stick with what I know for now (I can't move off DDE until the vendor does). > > The Question: Can anyone point me to an object model or design pattern that does what I'm trying to do, but that is easier to update, and at the same time is more flexible with events? > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions, > > Bob
- Previous message: Alexander Nickolov: "Re: DCOM not working on XP"
- In reply to: BobforeApples: "Interchangeable object strategy needed."
- Next in thread: BobforeApples: "Re: Interchangeable object strategy needed."
- Reply: BobforeApples: "Re: Interchangeable object strategy needed."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
