On 29 Jul 2013, at 13:12, Peter Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally, I would be a little uncomfortable with this. mostly because it > feels like you are taking a user 'entity' and splitting it up and spreading > its information across your system in different places (user name being > stored in session at point of login?) But, I realise that that is just a gut > reaction from someone who has ALWAYS done it that way, not for any actually > valid reason (that I can immediately) articulate. Heh, this is exactly how I felt. I wrote this code in the validate-the-user style first because that's how I've always done it. Then I realised I had no logical justification for this at all, so I refactored it, and now the code is simpler. Maybe an undiscovered requirement will introduce a need for the username in the User, and reveal the source of my uneasy feeling. Or maybe it's just a transient thing while I shake off some deeply-held assumptions about how software is written. Re spreading information around: I considered that with validation, which is now separate from the User. The question I asked myself was – once some policy or other has decided what usernames are allowed, does the behaviour of the User depend on that in any way? My answer was that currently, no, it doesn't. The analogy I drew was that if there was some legal requirement on the name my parents could give me, once that has been decided, my behaviour won't change. Well it might if they'd decided to call me Sue, but not in any way that corresponds to a user account in a software system. Cheers Ash -- http://www.patchspace.co.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashmoran -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NWRUG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nwrug-members. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
