I’ve seen this is various codebases, and wanted to know if this generally frowned upon or not.
For example:
public class MyClass { public int Id; public MyClass() { Id = new Database().GetIdFor(typeof(MyClass)); } }
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
There are several reasons this is not generally considered good design some of which like causing difficult unit testing and difficulty of handling errors have already been mentioned.
The main reason I would choose not to do so is that your object and the data access layer are now very tightly coupled which means that any use of that object outside of it original design requires significant rework. As an example what if you came across an instance where you needed to use that object without any values assigned for instance to persist a new instance of that class? you now either have to overload the constructor and then make sure all of your other logic handles this new case, or inherit and override.
If the object and the data access were decoupled then you could create an instance and then not hydrate it. Or if your have a different project that uses the same entities but uses a different persistence layer then the objects are reusable.
Having said that I have taken the easier path of coupling in projects in the past 🙂