Hi Pol,
I think you can search "Aspect-Oriented Programming" in google.
There are many links in google, related to it.
Best regards,
Jeffrey Tan
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! -
www.microsoft.com/security
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights.
--------------------
| From: "Pol Bawin" <
[email protected]>
| References: <OgW#
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
<#
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
<e#
[email protected]>
| Subject: Re: Custom attributes to define min, max, ... value on numerical
properties
| Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:39:23 +0200
| Lines: 117
| X-Priority: 3
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
| Message-ID: <#
[email protected]>
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.78.114.66
| Path: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl
| Xref: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp:187226
| X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp
|
| Thank you for this information, but or then I to find this article
|
|
| "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <
[email protected]> a
| écrit dans le message de e#
[email protected]...
| > Dmitry,
| >
| > They can provide indicators as to what the data validation should
be.
| > Attributes are nothing more than meta-data, and they should have no
| > executable code in them (at least, when loosely defining "executable").
| You
| > need to have code that performs actions based on the meta-data, which is
| in
| > fact what the implementation of Aspect Oriented Programming that you saw
| (I
| > believe we saw the same article) does.
| >
| > --
| > - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
| > - nick(dot)paldino=at=exisconsulting<dot>com
| >
| > "Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]" <
[email protected]>
wrote
| > in message | > > Nicholas,
| > >
| > > It would be nice if these attributes could also perform corresponding
| data
| > > validation. I have seen an article called "Aspect-Oriented
Programming"
| > that
| > > explained such tricks. While I find this idea very appealing, its
| > > implementation seems to be too complicated in the .NET Framework.
| > >
| > > --
| > > Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]
| > > X-Unity Test Studio
| > >
http://x-unity.miik.com.ua/teststudio.aspx
| > > Bring the power of unit testing to VS .NET IDE
| > >
| > > "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <
[email protected]>
| > wrote
| > > in message | > > > Pol,
| > > >
| > > > Well, there is no attribute like that, but you can always create
| > your
| > > > own. You just have to derive a class from the Attribute class and
| then
| > > add
| > > > your properties, and the appropriate constructor syntax.
| > > >
| > > >
| > > > --
| > > > - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
| > > > - nick(dot)paldino=at=exisconsulting<dot>com
| > > >
| > > > | > > > > Sorry but It is not my problem.
| > > > >
| > > > > I woul like to define custom attributes to set min, max, number of
| > > digits
| > > > > by exemple :
| > > > > [MinValue(0)]
| > > > > [MaxValue(100)]
| > > > > ..
| > > > > public int Temperature
| > > > > {
| > > > > ...
| > > > > }
| > > > >
| > > > > Somebody has you it already defined this type of attribute.
| > > > >
| > > > > "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]"
| <
[email protected]>
| > a
| > > > > écrit dans le message de | > (e-mail address removed)...
| > > > > > Polo,
| > > > > >
| > > > > > I believe the static property on each numeric type is
MinValue
| > and
| > > > > > MaxValue for the min and max values in that range respectively.
| > > > > >
| > > > > > Hope this helps.
| > > > > >
| > > > > >
| > > > > > --
| > > > > > - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
| > > > > > - nick(dot)paldino=at=exisconsulting<dot>com
| > > > > >
| > > > > > | > > > > > > Hi All,
| > > > > > >
| > > > > > > Did somebody already define attributes for numerical
properties
| to
| > > > > define
| > > > > > > value : minima, maxima, a number of decimal, ...? This
| > information
| > > > > would
| > > > > > be
| > > > > > > useful to unify syntax
| > > > > > >
| > > > > > > Polo
| > > > > > >
| > > > > > >
| > > > > >
| > > > > >
| > > > >
| > > > >
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
|
