101

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, Tom, you wrote: IQ>> Sounds epically and how to be with stateless objects in which one logician and there is no state? For what it DI, if potential time of their life - from start of system to its most finish? Tom> sounds not epically and logically. Whether Statefull or Stateless absolutely does not influence in any way that it is necessary  . The only thing on what it influences - lifetime . If it Stateless - it is safely possible to do it singleton th. As to Statefull that it is necessary to understand that for  and to whom it belongs. And at you in a head porridge, you mixed different concepts - State, and DI. On a question for what - already , for this purpose what to have possibility to substitute in tests, for this purpose what to make dependence explicit. Again these tests... Incomplete technology of testing in the answer for destruction of brains of a large quantity of developers. Today already there are technologies allowing not to break architecture proceeding from needs of testing. If you read a post undoubtedly would see that I describe a situation when tests in the project is an unrealizable imagination. IQ>> it is amusing))) here for example lifetime db entity is defined it as a rule by a context in one method from loading from a DB before saving in a DB. Here for example there is a lots static  methods not having a state. Here for example there are whole services dependence from which and which lives operation business is defined by a context since strongly depends from logic business... Tom> to Ask that of that wanted. And once again I will specify, here your position of the neophyte funny looks. I can argue you the age programmer of years after 40 which simply not could in DI. And already never can. I in a post wrote all - I personally did not meet projects where DI  has been used. Alas to me, alas to my office. We rivet business the logic, tons. It can somewhere differently, my post not against DI, and against its usage in the religious purposes. IQ>> it seems To me or your position is more connected to faith questions, than with software development questions? Tom> it seems to you. My position is connected to principles and development experience mission critical systems of operating 24/7 and spread under circuit PaaS. Quality for us crucial. A covering tests for us crucial. I will ask directly - you on what course of institute? Tom>>> 2. Usage DI allows you to define accurately all object dependencies, dependences become explicit and receives them  normally in the designer. Differently I would not need to climb on the object code what to understand and on what it depends. It is enough to look in the designer and all becomes clear. Tom>>> 3. At total usage DI in all project in all project the approach is used same standard. Such code to read simply and clearly. And here when here here we make a reverse case new, and here there a static method and here it here we here cause  because it is a service (and that such nobody knows service). It precisely delirium. IQ>> at me it is full of experience in area DI. I  DI  already in three projects therefore as with it architecture of type big ball of mud to become absolutely unsupported. Tom> on what you also I congratulate.  further. And to architecture DI has no relation. DI it is small private practice along with a heap of others an expert which are necessary for that what to write the qualitative code. And that you does that is called "macaroni" If you read a post thought what exactly about it there and is written And actually a problem about which I declare that "small private practice DI" owing to the formality, dominates over all other experts. That usage DI does not do architecture automatically good And here . . The code does on the order more verbose and difficult. PS and to architecture DI has no relation. I.e. on yours usage of mechanisms DI does not influence in any way a system architecture?

102

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, Tom, you wrote: Tom> Hello, IQuerist, you wrote: IQ>> Hello, Tom, you wrote: IQ>>>> Imho of the main thing is not written - the maniacal passion to IOC imposed by early implementation DI provokes violation of all principles SOLID. Tom>>> you with SOLID would understand and did not write bosh. Tell to me as DI at us spoils S or I I any more would not tell about D IQ>> you a post,  esteemed... Tom> I the post read, in difference from you. To you clamped a specific question what exactly and how from SOLID breaks DI. You merged... Well so you questions do not clamp... And them  answer. Or already answered in the post text.>>> you merged. You to us here suit a session  magics?

103

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

IQ> Again these tests... Incomplete technology of testing in the answer for destruction of brains of a large quantity of developers. Today already there are technologies allowing not to break architecture proceeding from needs of testing. Well so give from tests and we begin. Tell to us about this a miracle technology (I hope not Typemock and not Microsoft Shim?) And it is even better, educate us, show your tests. IQ> if you read a post undoubtedly would see that I describe a situation when tests in the project is an unrealizable imagination.??? Tests, imagination???? Without . IQ>>> it is amusing))) here for example lifetime db entity is defined it as a rule by a context in one method from loading from a DB before saving in a DB. Here for example there is a lots static  methods not having a state. Here for example there are whole services dependence from which and which lives operation business is defined by a context since strongly depends from logic business... Tom>> to Ask that of that wanted. And once again I will specify, here your position of the neophyte funny looks. I can argue you the age programmer of years after 40 which simply not could in DI. And already never can. IQ> I in a post wrote all - I personally did not meet projects where DI  has been used. Alas to me, alas to my office. We rivet business the logic, tons. It can somewhere differently, my post not against DI, and against its usage in the religious purposes. IQ>>> it seems to me or your position is more connected to faith questions, than with software development questions? Tom>> it seems to you. My position is connected to principles and development experience mission critical systems of operating 24/7 and spread under circuit PaaS. Quality for us crucial. A covering tests for us crucial. IQ> I Will ask directly - you on what course of institute? Ask directly how many to me of years. I do not hesitate, to me will be 37 winter. IQ> I.e. on yours usage of mechanisms DI does not influence in any way a system architecture? DI concerns implementation instead of architecture. DI too low-level abstraction what it to carry to architecture.

104

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, IQuerist, you wrote: IQ> Hello, Tom, you wrote: Tom>> Hello, IQuerist, you wrote: IQ>>> Hello, Tom, you wrote: IQ>>>>> Imho of the main thing is not written - the maniacal passion to IOC imposed by early implementation DI provokes violation of all principles SOLID. Tom>>>> you with SOLID would understand and did not write bosh. Tell to me as DI at us spoils S or I I any more would not tell about D IQ>>> you a post,  esteemed... Tom>> I the post read, in difference from you. To you clamped a specific question what exactly and how from SOLID breaks DI. You merged... IQ> Well so you questions do not clamp... And them  answer. Or already answered in the post text. You answer a question that you meant when wrote "maniacal passion to IOC imposed by early implementation DI provokes violation of all principles SOLID". Explain to me inscrutable on the examples, which principles from SOLID and how on yours are broken. >>>> you merged. IQ> you to us here suit a session  magics? . I will leave  .

105

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, Tom, you wrote: IQ>> Again these tests... Incomplete technology of testing in the answer for destruction of brains of a large quantity of developers. Today already there are technologies allowing not to break architecture proceeding from needs of testing. Tom> well so give from tests and we begin. Tell to us about this a miracle technology (I hope not Typemock and not Microsoft Shim?) Tom> And it is even better, educate us, show your tests. It to become ridiculously, you read a post? There are no tests projects with naive DI to them, as a rule do not live. IQ>> if you read a post undoubtedly would see that I describe a situation when tests in the project is an unrealizable imagination. Tom>??? Tests, imagination???? Without . If you read a post would manage without imaginations there Russian on the white is written - usage DI in the specific project often justify exceptional need of creation a unit of tests which the specific project never waits. IQ>> I will ask directly - you on what course of institute? Tom> ask directly how many to me of years. I do not hesitate, to me will be 37 winter. And on what you institute course in 37 years in the winter? You produced so much " a buzz", how many I heard only from students. IQ>> I.e. on yours usage of mechanisms DI does not influence in any way a system architecture? Tom> DI concerns implementation instead of architecture. DI too low-level abstraction what it to carry to architecture. Validly Unfortunately I too often watch a situation when architecture big ball of mud try to improve using DI (about that and a post). Also there is a natural question - project development to big ball of mud without maniacal need of implementation DI at the earliest stages would be reduced or  is not present...

106

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, Tom, you wrote: IQ>> Well so you questions do not clamp... And them  answer. Or already answered in the post text. Tom> you answer a question that you meant when wrote "maniacal passion to IOC imposed by early implementation DI provokes violation of all principles SOLID". Explain to me inscrutable on the examples, which principles from SOLID and how on yours are broken. There was such idea, but as a whole all main problems were reduced to that as services very low-level specific implementations, as a rule it DAL helpers are used well. In article it is already shown, so to me it is all it seemed superfluous.

107

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

IQ>>> Again these tests... Incomplete technology of testing in the answer for destruction of brains of a large quantity of developers. Today already there are technologies allowing not to break architecture proceeding from needs of testing. Tom>> well so give from tests and we begin. Tell to us about this a miracle technology (I hope not Typemock and not Microsoft Shim?) Tom>> And it is even better, educate us, show your tests. IQ> it to become ridiculously, you read a post? There are no tests projects with naive DI to them, as a rule do not live. At you do not live, at all remaining problems is not present. Show me YOUR tests which YOU do in your correct projects. Tell and teach as YOU do Correctly. IQ>>> if you read a post undoubtedly would see that I describe a situation when tests in the project is an unrealizable imagination. Tom>>??? Tests, imagination???? Without . IQ> if you read a post would manage without imaginations there Russian on the white is written - usage DI in the specific project often justify exceptional need of creation a unit of tests which the specific project never waits. IQ>>> I will ask directly - you on what course of institute? Tom>> ask directly how many to me of years. I do not hesitate, to me will be 37 winter. IQ> and on what you institute course in 37 years in the winter? IQ> you produced so much " a buzz", how many I heard only from students. I started to program when I was not as early as 10 years old. And to work years in 20 on a speciality if you my experience interests. And all this time I study for in our trade it would be necessary what to remain the professional. IQ>>> I.e. on yours usage of mechanisms DI does not influence in any way a system architecture? IQ> I am valid Unfortunately too often I watch a situation when architecture big ball of mud try to improve using DI (about that and a post). Also there is a natural question - project development to big ball of mud without maniacal need of implementation DI at the earliest stages would be reduced or  is not present... Unfortunately at you such porridge in a head that that such architecture, neither that such DI nor that such containers for what they are necessary and as them correctly to use, that such State and as it correctly to use you do not know. But thus do not ask questions and confidently state that DI it angrily. And on questions to tell as from your point of view to do correctly you  merge... Your "ally" nearby though on business asks. And at you all snivels from a nose are inflated.

108

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

109

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, IQuerist, you wrote: IQ> Hello, Tom, you wrote: IQ>>> Well so you questions do not clamp... And them  answer. Or already answered in the post text. Tom>> you answer a question that you meant when wrote "maniacal passion to IOC imposed by early implementation DI provokes violation of all principles SOLID". Explain to me inscrutable on the examples, which principles from SOLID and how on yours are broken. IQ> there was such idea, but as a whole all main problems were reduced to that as services very low-level specific implementations, as a rule it DAL helpers are used well. In article it is already shown, so to me it is all it seemed superfluous. The keyword seemed to you. Tests when the you will show?

110

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, Tom, you wrote: Tom> Hello, IQuerist, you wrote: IQ>> Hello, Tom, you wrote: IQ>>>> Well so you questions do not clamp... And them  answer. Or already answered in the post text. Tom>>> you answer a question that you meant when wrote "maniacal passion to IOC imposed by early implementation DI provokes violation of all principles SOLID". Explain to me inscrutable on the examples, which principles from SOLID and how on yours are broken. IQ>> there was such idea, but as a whole all main problems were reduced to that as services very low-level specific implementations, as a rule it DAL helpers are used well. In article it is already shown, so to me it is all it seemed superfluous. Tom> the keyword seemed to you. And my topic seems to you differently?  the.

111

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, Tom, you wrote: IQ>>>> Again these tests... Incomplete technology of testing in the answer for destruction of brains of a large quantity of developers. Today already there are technologies allowing not to break architecture proceeding from needs of testing. Tom>>> well so give from tests and we begin. Tell to us about this a miracle technology (I hope not Typemock and not Microsoft Shim?) Tom>>> And it is even better, educate us, show your tests. IQ>> it to become ridiculously, you read a post? There are no tests projects with naive DI to them, as a rule do not live. Tom> at you do not live, at all remaining problems is not present. By 37 those years, it would be time to be disaccustomed to speak for all... Tom> Tell and teach as YOU do Correctly. If you read a post would understand that it not volume how to do correctly. And how often do irregularly. IQ>> and on what you institute course in 37 years in the winter? IQ>> you produced so much " a buzz", how many I heard only from students. Tom> I started to program when I was not as early as 10 years old. And to work years in 20 on a speciality if you my experience interests. Does not interest at all. Experience it is often visible on set questions. Tom> and all this time I study for in our trade it would be necessary what to remain the professional. Here never understood people who say lies half Tom> Unfortunately at you such porridge in a head that that such architecture, neither that such DI nor that such containers for what they are necessary and as them correctly to use, that such State and as it correctly to use you do not know. But thus do not ask questions and confidently state that DI it angrily. Well read already a post! I anywhere do not state that DI it angrily. On the contrary, specially time five wrote the reverse.

112

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

IQ>>> It to become ridiculously, you read a post? There are no tests projects with naive DI to them, as a rule do not live. Tom>> at you do not live, at all remaining problems is not present. IQ> By 37 those years, it would be time to be disaccustomed to speak for all... I speak for pair hundreds developers and some tens projects with which I is familiar. Tom>> tell and teach as YOU do Correctly. IQ> if you read a post would understand that it not volume how to do correctly. And how often do irregularly. Read. Did not understand. Explain. IQ>>> and on what you institute course in 37 years in the winter? IQ>>> you produced so much " a buzz", how many I heard only from students. Tom>> I started to program when I was not as early as 10 years old. And to work years in 20 on a speciality if you my experience interests. IQ> does not interest at all. Experience it is often visible on set questions. Tom>> And all this time I study for in our trade it would be necessary what to remain the professional. IQ> here never understood people who say lies half It is possible on more in detail where I say lies IQ> Well read already a post! I anywhere do not state that DI it angrily. On the contrary, specially time five wrote the reverse. At you DI what that very strange. What that selective. You and did not explain criteria how to define that it is necessary DI and that is not necessary both the main thing why it is not necessary also what problems carries.

113

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

IQ> And my topic seems to you differently?  the. Your topic in which you are not responsible for a word. Told that DI that that breaks and  to us as why cannot. Would tell that got excited and would pass but is not present, we rest...

114

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, Tom, you wrote: IQ>> And my topic seems to you differently?  the. Tom> your topic in which you are not responsible for a word. ... I from University such  did not hear. Tom> told that DI that that breaks and  to us as why cannot. Would tell that got excited and would pass but is not present, we rest... Got excited? Stablly it is necessary me  from projects "naive DI" which only hinders. Read a post. Do not agree - write the.

115

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, Tom, you wrote: IQ>> By 37 those years, it would be time to be disaccustomed to speak for all... Tom> I speak for pair hundreds developers and some tens projects with which I is familiar. Obviously I speak for millions remaining, than especially I do not brag. Tom>>> tell and teach as YOU do Correctly. IQ>> if you read a post would understand that it not volume how to do correctly. And how often do irregularly. Tom> read. Did not understand. Explain. To explain as do not Correctly possibly your operation it is devilishly boring IQ>> does not interest At all. Experience it is often visible on set questions. Tom>>> and all this time I study for in our trade it would be necessary what to remain the professional. IQ>> here never understood people who say lies half Tom> It is possible on more in detail where I say lies That there was a hint Hints do not explain, them or understand, or not. IQ>> Well read already a post! I anywhere do not state that DI it angrily. On the contrary, specially time five wrote the reverse. Tom> at you DI what that very strange. What that selective. So about that and a post! Not at me, and at naive architects. Tom> you and did not explain criteria how to define that it is necessary DI and that is not necessary both the main thing why it is not necessary also what problems carries. A post how in DI build on the basis of DAL helpers. I came out with the assumption that it is not necessary so to do also a row of reasons. If the described example does not carry for you problems - a post explicitly not for you. Would write: "I and to steam of hundreds developers" made so in "some tens projects with which I am familiar" and all is excellent, in vain the author to be soared.

116

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

117

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

118

Re: About "naive" DI and about architectural powerlessness

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: a C> I inside Amazon' work in cloud computings. The epicenter service-based architecture, it is possible to tell. Development languages - Java and derivative of it. [There is some offtopic] AWS? And truth say, what this unique normal subdividing in all Amazone in respect of working conditions? We here with colleagues, the person 12, one year ago amicably changed operation - received  and went to seek increases elsewhere. I thought in Amazon to go, but in other subdividing. But somehow it was not added - on interview descended, but  did not receive. Then with colleagues spoke, it appeared that I was the only thing who and really wanted to go there, remaining wanted to receive  Amazona then to manage to get to myself of more money in other offices. Very much abused work/life ballance Amazona, speak that the people there live on operation and a unique place with human working conditions - development AWS.