Get Help:Ask a Question in our Forums|Report a Bug|More Help Resources
Last post Nov 15, 2012 01:14 PM by atconway
Nov 07, 2012 07:33 PM|LINK
Hello - I've been on a few projects where the company has built an architecture on top of a public framework that actually made the original framework more difficult to use. For example, the .NET framework is a popular and proven framework for application
development. It has a proven framework for data access.
I worked on one project where the architecture team had implemented a framework around the .NET data access framework. The architecture implementation was so poor that even the architects on the architecture team were unable to describe how to use it to
get data from a stored proc.
So considering I've seen this issue a few times over the course of my career I'm guessing that this issue has been defined as an "anti-pattern. Does anyone know if this issue has been defined as an anti-pattern and if so then do you know the name that's
associated with this anti-pattern?
Nov 07, 2012 07:45 PM|LINK
The architecture implementation was so poor that even the architects on the architecture team were unable to describe how to use it to get data from a stored proc.
It's not an anti-pattern. It is lack of experience / communication.
Nov 15, 2012 01:14 PM|LINK
Really what you are experiencing is 'Code Smell'. It might be technically working, but a deeper long term issue is present.
An anti-pattern would be difficult to name without some of the more intimate details of the implemented pattern and may actually be multiple anti-patterns in use (i.e. God Object and Anemic Domain Model). It's not really that critical to get down to a single
name to blurt back to the Architects. Odds are it will start a huge argument and there are better ways to handle issues like this then with fancy 'labels'. Be prepared to answer 'How do we make it better?" If you ase interested for your own knowledge, some
common anti-patterns are listed in the link below: