Know what you mean there. I was implementing Prism by looking at the source code and writing my own bits with the same names that they used in Prism. Prism was in alpha at the time. Switching over was fairly easy (mainly because of my choice of copying that which we ended up using.)
Heck, it's all made up as we go along. Once someone stops and looks for the common things we're making up, they smack a label on it, call it a pattern or best practice and then its official. Remembering Silverlight was barely a whisper three years ago (half my official development career) makes me realise how fast things are moving still. Wheeee, Silverlight 4 is out this week and I'm not even sure its hit its third birthday... nope. just checked, it's third birthday is the 5th of September. Agreed though, using Prism for a little project would be overkill but it sounds like its gotten to the size where splitting things up would be of benefit. You don't have to implement the whole of Prism, just pick the bits out you want. If you get stuck ping me off list. I wouldn't say I'm an expert with Prism but if I can help, be happy to. cheers, Stephen On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Greg Keogh <g...@mira.net> wrote: > Stephen, Prism would divert and solve my whole loading problem. Trouble > is that I started this app when Prism was still in nappies and I decided to > write my own mini-CAB which used the View-Controller pattern. I spent > several weeks writing a demo in CAB and it was monstrous overkill for a team > of one and half people. It made more work than it solved. I figured the same > would happen with Prism, however I would now consider using it for any new > large SL project, or perhaps the MVVM-lite that I saw last week. > > > > I was rather irritated that I followed the CAB pattern, and then last year > everyone goes into a frenzy of MVVM and binding everything to everything > else. Due to peer group pressure, over the last few months I’ve refactored > my app to use binding in the MVVM style. Now my app is mostly MVVM with some > remnants of View-Controller where I found the binding so mind-bogglingly > difficult to implement that I skipped it for now. > > > > I find that using pure binding is like building a delicate crystal palace > made out of puzzle pieces. Binding is a clever invention, but it was > released before anyone looked at the big picture of how to use it > consistently and productively. I spend more time tweaking bound classes, > properties and XML than I do writing code. Now we’ve got people advocating > binding for method calls using wrapper classes and attached properties and > I’m still not sure what’s the best way of doing it. It’s like it’s being > invented on the run. > > > > Greg > > _______________________________________________ > ozsilverlight mailing list > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > >
_______________________________________________ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
