Comments on: C# Universal Type Converter

By: koirat

koirat — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:28:06 +0000

Hello. I was just looking info about type converters. I have readen your article. After this I saw the first comment and wanted to say this guy is right. Until I saw it's name. LOL.

Btw. I have implemented something that i named UniversalTypeConverter in my code, but it's seriously something different.

What you are doing is type conversion. Not Type Converter.

By: Jonny

Jonny — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:14:03 +0000

Interesting, but I'm not sure how useful it is. Just imagine having to remember the type of each property – a nightmare if used in a larger application. What's worse, if you should get a type wrong somewhere there's no exception thrown, instead a default value is returned. Looks suspiciously like an anti-pattern to me.

By: Philippe Dykmans

Philippe Dykmans — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:41:39 +0000

Nice approach. Altough i would rather call it 'transparent' than 'universal'. Because the idea is to make the object's real type transparent for the user. While if it was universal, it would support any type out of the box. Which is not the case.

Regards!
Philippe

By: Koirat

Koirat — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:13:38 +0000

TypeConverter is a class in .Net so meaby you should change title to something less confusing.

This article is interesting anyway.
Best Regards.