CSLA: Nullable SmartDates?

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Do the SmartDate fields really need to be defined as nullable? SmartDates
are intended to incorporate logic for when the dates are null/empty (i.e.
use the DBValue property when pumping to the command parameters collection).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jprice5...@gmail.com on 23 Oct 2009 at 5:52

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by shannon....@gmail.com on 27 Oct 2009 at 5:20

• Added labels: Framework-CSLA

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by shannon....@gmail.com on 30 Oct 2009 at 3:42

• Changed state: Investigating

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bniemyjski on 15 Jan 2010 at 10:49

• Added labels: Priority-Low, Type-Enhancement

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I think you have already replaced the smart dates with nullable (of DateTime)

Original comment by JenasysD...@gmail.com on 24 Feb 2010 at 6:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hello,

I have added back in support for SmartDate.. Do you think this is something 
that 
should be removed or what do you think the correct fix should be. I tend to 
agree 
with jprice but since nullable types were added after the SmartDate 
Implementation 
and all designers are now aware of nullable types. I think the correct 
implementation 
would be to continue using nullable SmartDates or move to Nullable DateTimes.

Thanks
-Blake Niemyjski

Original comment by bniemyjski on 27 Feb 2010 at 8:24

• Changed state: AwaitingInfo
• Added labels: Version-2.0.1

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Blake,
I haven't got to testing my smartdate aware datepickers against the new 
nullable(of
Date) properties. I am going to have to look at the new .net 4 wpf datepicker 
as well
as my previous control was a windows forms edition, but I'm transitioning to 
wpf. 
I'll let you know when I get to this task, which should be within the next week 
or so.
Jamie.

Original comment by JenasysD...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2010 at 12:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

See the following issue:
http://code.google.com/p/codesmith/issues/detail?id=313

There are some performance penalties of using Nullable of CSLA.SmartDate.  I 
agree
with JPrice5315, that we shouldn't need to use smartdates anymore.  I would be 
happy
if we swapped back to Nullable(of DateTime).

Jamie.

Original comment by JenasysD...@gmail.com on 15 Mar 2010 at 1:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'm not advocating dumping SmartDates. I actually like the SmartDates because 
there
is built-in behavior (either min or max) when the date is null.

What I'm saying is that _Nullable_ SmartDates are redundant. Either use Nullable
DateTimes or SmartDates, but not Nullable SmartDates.

Original comment by jprice5...@gmail.com on 15 Mar 2010 at 2:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hello,

I'll take a look into the performance issue and depending on the results of 
that 
investigation it will determine this issue.

Thanks
-Blake Niemyjski

Original comment by bniemyjski on 15 Mar 2010 at 1:49

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Blake, 
I agree with jprice5315. We should have Nullable(of DateTime) or SmartDate 
outputs
and it would be preferable if the user could configure this global depending on 
their
personal preference.
Jamie.

Original comment by JenasysD...@gmail.com on 17 Mar 2010 at 11:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hello,

We have removed SmartDate support due to the performance issues addressed here 
(http://code.google.com/p/codesmith/issues/detail?id=313). If you take a look 
at the 
commit you can see that two lines of code were removed to remove support for 
this. 
You can always add these two lines back in for support. This issue also needs 
to be 
logged on the CSLA Bug tracker. So if you want to add that to the tracker I'll 
make 
sure we add support back into the templates once the performance issues have 
been 
resolved.

Thanks
-Blake Niemyjski

Original comment by bniemyjski on 19 Mar 2010 at 3:05

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bniemyjski on 19 Mar 2010 at 3:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bniemyjski on 21 Jun 2010 at 8:05

• Added labels: Version-3.0.0

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bniemyjski on 21 Jun 2010 at 8:06

• Removed labels: Version-2.0.1