You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've been working on a PR (versus the stuff I whipped up real quick as a proof of concept) to integrate a couple other blog services that are not file based.
The first one being Azure table storage. There's a method on the service interface that is coupled to a file provider.
While I could or would normally just ignore it and have it throw an exception, the issue here is how coupled this method is to the whole app not just the service itself. It's called once from each the blog controller and the metaweblog service.
Any thoughts on this specific coupling and how it could be reduced to just the FileBlog Service?
Here's the commit for the service I am proposing. But I could see this being a similar issue with a database provider.
If there's no interest in supporting other services, then no big deal. But since an interface is used I imagine that the intent was to allow other providers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've been working on a PR (versus the stuff I whipped up real quick as a proof of concept) to integrate a couple other blog services that are not file based.
The first one being Azure table storage. There's a method on the service interface that is coupled to a file provider.
Task<string> SaveFile(byte[] bytes, string fileName, string suffix = null)
https://github.com/madskristensen/Miniblog.Core/blob/master/src/Services/IBlogService.cs#L107
While I could or would normally just ignore it and have it throw an exception, the issue here is how coupled this method is to the whole app not just the service itself. It's called once from each the blog controller and the metaweblog service.
Any thoughts on this specific coupling and how it could be reduced to just the FileBlog Service?
Here's the commit for the service I am proposing. But I could see this being a similar issue with a database provider.
tbasallo@fc8ccff
If there's no interest in supporting other services, then no big deal. But since an interface is used I imagine that the intent was to allow other providers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: