Hello Julio. Thank you for the wonderful video. Just wondering, in the end of the video we have the name validated and strictly required. What if we had another property called Description for example. And this value can be an empty string, how can we achieve this?
Yes, things make more sense if you assume controllers never existed to start with. It takes some time until this new approach seems more natural to us folks used to controllers.
Just the default C# extension (marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-dotnettools.csharp) and the C# extensions one (marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=kreativ-software.csharpextensions)
To resume you copy all the code from controllers, to program.cs to have big mess. To clean, you create a class where you put all entrypoint. No thanks, I prefer something clean.
Yea, it doesn't look like you get a lot when you already had the controller in place, but I'm loving the approach for new APIs. In any case, thanks for the feedback!
I agree with you, I do not see the advantage of doing this, unless if you have a one liner quick implementation. Killing controllers and create 2 three more classes to achieve the same implementation doesn't make much sense ..
Hello Julio. Thank you for the wonderful video.
Just wondering, in the end of the video we have the name validated and strictly required.
What if we had another property called Description for example. And this value can be an empty string, how can we achieve this?
Welcome! You just add that property to your DTO, without the [Required] attribute.
@@juliocasal great! Thanks Julio 😊
Great video! Just one question, if I want to use an ILogger in the controller actions, for example, I would have to pass it as a parameter as well?
Yep, you can inject any service registered in the service container, either by yourself or by ASP.NET Core (like ILogger), as parameters.
The reason may be that I'm used to controllers but the end result didn't seem to be more simple than the classical approach.
Yes, things make more sense if you assume controllers never existed to start with. It takes some time until this new approach seems more natural to us folks used to controllers.
This is beautiful!
OMG, thank you David! Was just watching your Build 2023 talk. You rock!
what VS extensions for c# do you use?
Just the default C# extension (marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-dotnettools.csharp) and the C# extensions one (marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=kreativ-software.csharpextensions)
how did you generate .http file for your api?
Did not generate it, created it by hand. More info: marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=humao.rest-client
To resume you copy all the code from controllers, to program.cs to have big mess. To clean, you create a class where you put all entrypoint. No thanks, I prefer something clean.
Yea, it doesn't look like you get a lot when you already had the controller in place, but I'm loving the approach for new APIs. In any case, thanks for the feedback!
I agree with you, I do not see the advantage of doing this, unless if you have a one liner quick implementation. Killing controllers and create 2 three more classes to achieve the same implementation doesn't make much sense ..
How is this better though?
It's very explicit and performs a bit better.