[quoted text, click to view] "bpeikes" wrote:
> I'd agree, but only if support for the Application Blocks was
> reasonable to start off with.
Yes that would be helpful. Perhaps a dedicated newsgroup would bring more
users, more interest, more pressure to improve the blocks.
I since found this forum for Microsoft Application Blocks
<
http://forums.asp.net/122/ShowForum.aspx> which, although on asp.net
contains posts about desktop apps too.
[quoted text, click to view] > The application block code seems to be amaturish at best. I
> thought that the configuration block was a great
> idea, and that thought was put into it, but within several days of
> using realized that no one could have possibly used it for a real
> project. For instance, storage providers have to be defined for each
> configuration section instead of being defined once and named in your
> config sections. Come on folks, at least look at architectures like
> log4net... A shame considering how much code was written.
>
> I then thought that maybe it was improved in the 2.0 version of the
> EAB, so I downloaded and installed that only to find that there was no
> real documentation on what had changed and the configuration block
> seemed to have been moved into the core.
I do seem to be having a lot of problems with the UIPAB 2.0
<
http://forums.asp.net/1225126/ShowPost.aspx>, and
<
http://forums.asp.net/713774/ShowPost.aspx> which seem related to the fact
that it has not yet been updated for .NET 2.0. I think the patterns team may
have been concentrating on the Composite UI Application Block (which contains
a subset of the UIPAB) but I still think the UIPAB is an important block so
hopefully they will return their attention to it soon. At the moment,
although it fits my needs in many ways, I don't think I can use it in its