Scott Wagner, a .Net Solutions Architect has come up with (what I believe) is a simple enough solution. An argument checker class provides a way to tie delegates to the type of argument to check. Checking the argument is accomplished by calling a static method and providing the argument name and error message in the event that the argument does not pass the check.

For the time though, I will not be trying to incorporate any approach until I've gotten further along in the development of the basic classes. This is partly because at this point, I'm trying to get a good deal of code up to standard and make sure it's passing general unit tests.

I would like to hear some feedback on this matter so please chime in.

 public static object[] CreateObjectsFromDataTable(DataTable aTable, Type aType) { object[] ObjList = new object[aTable.Rows.Count]; for(int i=0;i<aTable.Rows.Count;i++) { ObjList[i] = CreateObjectFromDataRow(aTable.Rows[i], aType); } return ObjList; } public static object CreateObjectFromDataRow(DataRow aRow, Type aType) { ConstructorInfo aConstrInf = aType.GetConstructor(new Type[0]); if (aConstrInf.GetParameters().Length > 0) { Throw(String.Format("{0} does not have a parameterless contructor", aType.FullName)); } object aObj = aConstrInf.Invoke(new object[0]); foreach (DataColumn aColumn in aRow.Table.Columns) { WriteProperty(aObj, aColumn.ColumnName, aRow[aColumn.ColumnName], new object[0]); } return aObj; } 

In this example I'm assuming that the column names are the same as the property names in the targeted type. Should they not be the same then I guess the DataTable would need additional 'massaging' before its passed to the function.
Is this roughly the type of strategy you have in mind? So how would this work for filling an object from XML? Would you simply pass in a node collection that uses the element's name as the property binding?

Anyways, I think the Reflection class shows great potential for all sorts of object factory type of work, I'll be watching NVigorate's progress closely. Thank you very much for your efforts so far.

cheers,

Roland

In the FAQ, you state "I was disappointed by what many other projects had to offer. The design approach I intend to follow should yield a cleaner architecture that offers users a lot more flexibility." It would be a great statement of purpose / goal for all of us if you could hold forth on that in a little more detail. What I hope you mean by this is that Nvirgorate will be simpler, more approachable, and easier to grok while still being powerful and useful. But how, exactly?

I note also your desire to be cross-platform between the Microsoft and Mono stacks. That is a great thing, although to be honest I haven't researched the alternatives enough to know if this is a point of differentiation or not.

Come to think of it … who do you see as your competitors and how will you best them?

I solicit comment on these topics because IMO these things need to be fleshed out and communicated in order to motivate people to join your effort in a significant way. It's fun to be in on the very ground floor of a new project … but there are a lot of them to choose from. Why is this the one for me (or anyone) to focus on?

Thanks!

Anyway … no big deal and no desire to start a Religious War. Just had to throw this one out there ;-)