P.COM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Business Rules
I've used the rules engine in Windows Workflow for a couple scenarios like
this. The primary advantage for you, it sounds like, is that the rules can
live outside the application in an XML format (you can embed this XML into
an assembly, lo
ed .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cowan
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:01 PM
To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Business Rules
Hi,
Not sure if everyone has forgiven me for my last rant which was pretty wrong
:-) but I am looking for so
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Business Rules> To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM> >
> > I would recommend> >> > Domain Driven Design - Evans> > Applying Domain
> Driven Design and Patterns - Nilsson> >> > I
IoC is included in ADDDP.
Cheers,
Greg
On 2/12/07, Frans Bouma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would recommend
>
> Domain Driven Design - Evans
> Applying Domain Driven Design and Patterns - Nilsson
>
> In particular take a look at the specification and notification patterns.
I'd like t
> I would recommend
>
> Domain Driven Design - Evans
> Applying Domain Driven Design and Patterns - Nilsson
>
> In particular take a look at the specification and notification patterns.
I'd like to add the IoC pattern to look at. It's easy to create
pluggable validation using IoC which mea
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Business Rules
I would recommend
Domain Driven Design - Evans
Applying Domain Driven Design and Patterns - Nilsson
In particular take a look at the specification and notification patterns.
Cheers
I would recommend
Domain Driven Design - Evans
Applying Domain Driven Design and Patterns - Nilsson
In particular take a look at the specification and notification patterns.
Cheers,
Greg
On 2/12/07, Paul Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Not sure if everyone has forgiven me for my last ra
cussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Cowan
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:18 PM
To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Business Rules
Hi,
I have seen that before, but what I am trying to avoid is having the rules
hard code
1.1 (we
are using 2.0) and may seem a bit heavy for what I am trying to achieve.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:05:31 -0500> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Business Rules> To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM> >
> you may
on
message & other error info to calling code.
-Original Message-
From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Cowan
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:01 PM
To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
Subject: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Business Rules
Hi,
Might this [0] help a bit?
If you have it, check out the Rules Engine that comes with BizTalk.
--
Ernst Kuschke
MVP - C# (South Africa)
http://www.ernstkuschke.com
0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_rules_engine
On 2/12/07, Paul Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Not sure if everyone
Hi,
Not sure if everyone has forgiven me for my last rant which was pretty wrong
:-) but I am looking for some advice to what I guess is a pretty common
problem.We are developing an application that will have a lot of business rules
that will change quite a lot during development. We have a dom
12 matches
Mail list logo
