<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>DotNetKicks.com : Stories kicked by DavidP</title>
    <description>Stories kicked by DavidP</description>
    <link>http://www.dotnetkicks.com/</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Atweb Publishing Ltd.</copyright>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
    <generator>DotNetKicks.com - .NET links, community driven</generator>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>Avoiding Dependencies</title>
      <description>As a rule, code should not directly depend on external resources such as System.Net.Mail's email sending capabilities.  Having code that directly calls out to System.Net.Mail is difficult to unit test as well as difficult to walk through in a test or stage environment without having actual emails sent.  Two design patterns can be used to reduce this dependency: Facade and Strategy.  The Strategy pattern offers a host of benefits above and beyond what the facade layer provides, as this articles demonstrates with code examples. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.dotnetkicks.com/kick/?url=http%3a%2f%2fstevesmithblog.com%2fblog%2favoiding-dependencies%2f"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.dotnetkicks.com/Services/Images/KickItImageGenerator.ashx?url=http%3a%2f%2fstevesmithblog.com%2fblog%2favoiding-dependencies%2f" border="0" alt="kick it on DotNetKicks.com" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
</description>
      <link>http://www.dotnetkicks.com/csharp/Avoiding_Dependencies</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dotnetkicks.com/csharp/Avoiding_Dependencies</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:46:03 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Convenience Kills, or the Case Against RAD Tools</title>
      <description>A rather heated discussion erupted last week on Twitter and IRC concerning so-called "drag-and-drop demos" - point-and-click demonstrations of "software development" that just involve dragging controls around on a graphical designer without a lot of actual coding involved. Being entirely unable to resist joining in on debates, I had to chime in and give my two cents. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.dotnetkicks.com/kick/?url=http%3a%2f%2fkohari.org%2f2008%2f08%2f18%2fconvenience-kills%2f"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.dotnetkicks.com/Services/Images/KickItImageGenerator.ashx?url=http%3a%2f%2fkohari.org%2f2008%2f08%2f18%2fconvenience-kills%2f" border="0" alt="kick it on DotNetKicks.com" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
</description>
      <link>http://www.dotnetkicks.com/community/Convenience_Kills_or_the_Case_Against_RAD_Tools</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dotnetkicks.com/community/Convenience_Kills_or_the_Case_Against_RAD_Tools</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:31:09 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Call Virtual Functions From Constructors? </title>
      <description>Be aware of this matter because it is not a trivial issue and apparently, there are no errors or warnings generated by the compiler. So, the rule to remember is to never call virtual methods from constructors. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.dotnetkicks.com/kick/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dev102.com%2f2008%2f07%2f08%2fcall-virtual-functions-from-constructors%2f"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.dotnetkicks.com/Services/Images/KickItImageGenerator.ashx?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dev102.com%2f2008%2f07%2f08%2fcall-virtual-functions-from-constructors%2f" border="0" alt="kick it on DotNetKicks.com" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
</description>
      <link>http://www.dotnetkicks.com/architecture/Call_Virtual_Functions_From_Constructors</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dotnetkicks.com/architecture/Call_Virtual_Functions_From_Constructors</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:01:02 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dear Software Tool Vendors...I'm Breaking Up With You</title>
      <description>Ever feel like you can't keep up with the latest and greatest and things are getting more complex not easier? So does Jimmy Bogard. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.dotnetkicks.com/kick/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lostechies.com%2fblogs%2fjimmy_bogard%2farchive%2f2008%2f04%2f08%2fdear-software-tool-vendors-re-i-m-breaking-up-with-you.aspx"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.dotnetkicks.com/Services/Images/KickItImageGenerator.ashx?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lostechies.com%2fblogs%2fjimmy_bogard%2farchive%2f2008%2f04%2f08%2fdear-software-tool-vendors-re-i-m-breaking-up-with-you.aspx" border="0" alt="kick it on DotNetKicks.com" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
</description>
      <link>http://www.dotnetkicks.com/patterns/Dear_Software_Tool_Vendors_I_m_Breaking_Up_With_You</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dotnetkicks.com/patterns/Dear_Software_Tool_Vendors_I_m_Breaking_Up_With_You</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:16:04 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The static Keyword</title>
      <description>We all use the static keyword, but do we really know what the possibilities are? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.dotnetkicks.com/kick/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.shaytalksabout.net%2fpost%2fThe-static-Keyword.aspx"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.dotnetkicks.com/Services/Images/KickItImageGenerator.ashx?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.shaytalksabout.net%2fpost%2fThe-static-Keyword.aspx" border="0" alt="kick it on DotNetKicks.com" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
</description>
      <link>http://www.dotnetkicks.com/csharp/The_static_Keyword</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dotnetkicks.com/csharp/The_static_Keyword</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:31:05 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>