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.
One of the tenants of DDD is to not allow your objects to enter an invalid state. To me this means there shouldn’t be a public parameterless constructor because that’s going to be an object in an invalid state 99% of the time.
Is this a good way to move forward? It becomes a huge PITA when you just want to new-up a class real quick.
Good question. I have DDD nazi friends who say parameterless constructors are the devil. I agree with that to a certain extent, but I also feel it depends on the class’s purpose.