Mental notes on architecture, learning by reading source, and what’s next.
OK — so it’s time for a new article. Lately, I’ve been diving deep into the Oqtane framework, and it’s been a beautiful journey. It reminds me of my early days with XAF from Developer Express—when I learned to think in software architecture and modern design patterns by simply reading the code.Back then, documentation was scarce. The advice was: “Look at the code.” I did—and that shaped a big part of my software education. It taught me that good source code is often self-explanatory.
Even though XAF is still our main tool at the office (Xari & BIT Frameworks), we’re expanding. We’re researching new divisions for Flutter and React, since some projects already use those fronts with an XAF backend. I also wanted to explore building client-server apps with a single .NET codebase that includes mobile—another reason Oqtane caught my eye.
Why Oqtane Caught My Attention
The Oqtane team is very responsive on GitHub. You can open a discussion and get thoughtful replies quickly. The source code is clean and educational—perfect for learning by reading. There are plenty of talks and videos on architecture and module development; some are a bit dated, but if you cross-check with the code, you’ll be fine.
I’ve learned there are two steps to mastering a framework: (1) immerse yourself in material (videos, code, docs), and (2) explain it to someone else. These notes do both—part research, part knowledge sharing.
There’s one clip I couldn’t locate where Shaun Walker explains that .NET already provides the pieces for modern, multi-platform, server-and-client applications—but the ecosystem is fragmented. Oqtane unifies those pieces into a single .NET codebase. If I find it, I’ll make a highlight and share it.
On Learning and Time
I’m trying to publish as much as I can now because I’m about to start a new chapter: I’ll be joining the University of St. Petersburg to learn Russian as my second language. It’s a tough language—very different from Spanish or Italian—so I’ll likely have less time to write for a while. Better to document these experiments now than let them sit in my notes for months.
It’s Sunday — so maybe it’s time to write an article to break the flow I’ve been in lately. I’ve been deep into researching design patterns for Oqtane, the web application framework created by Shaun Walker.
Today I woke up really early, around 4:30 a.m. I went downstairs, made coffee, and decided to play around with some applications I had on my list. One of them was HotKey Typer by James Montemagno.
I ran it for the first time and instantly loved it. It’s super simple and useful — but I had a problem. I started using glasses a few years ago, and I generally have trouble with small UI elements on the computer. I usually work at 150% scaling. Unfortunately, James’s app has a fixed window size, so everything looked cut off.
Since I’ve been coding a lot lately, I figured it would be an easy fix. I tweaked it — and it worked! Everything looked better, but a bit too large, so I adjusted it again… and again… and again. Before I knew it, I had turned it into a totally different application.
I was vibe coding for four or five hours straight. In the end, I added a lot of new functionality because I genuinely loved the app and the idea behind it. I added sets (or collections) — basically groups of snippets you can assign to keys 1–9. Then I added autosave, a settings screen, and a reset option for the collections. Every time I finished one feature, I said, “Just one more thing.” Five minutes turned into five hours.
When I was done, I recorded a demo video. It was a lot of fun — and the result was genuinely useful. I even want to create an installer for myself so I can easily reinstall it if I ever reformat my computer. (I used to be that guy who formatted his PC every month. Not anymore… but you never know.)
Lessons From Vibe Coding
I learned a lot from this little experiment. I’ve been vibe coding nonstop for about three months now — I’ve even used up all my Copilot credits before the 25th of the month more than once! Vibe coding is a lot of fun, but it can easily spiral out of control and take you in the wrong direction.
Next week, I want to change my approach a bit — maybe follow a more structured pattern.
Another thing this reminded me of is how important it is to work in a team. My business partner, José Javier Columbie, has always helped me with that. We’ve been working together for about 10 years now. I’m the kind of developer who keeps rewriting, refactoring, optimizing, making things faster, reusable, turning them into plugins or frameworks — and sometimes the original task was actually quite small.
That’s where Javier comes in. He’s the one who says, “José, it’s done. This is what they asked for, and this is what we’re delivering.” He keeps me grounded. Every developer needs that — or at least needs to learn how to set that boundary for themselves.
Final Thoughts
So that’s my takeaway from today’s vibe coding session: have fun, but know when to stop.
I’ll include below the links to:
James Montemagno’s original HotKey Typer repository
Over time, I transitioned to using the first versions of my beloved framework, XAF. As you might know, XAF generates a polished and functional UI out of the box. Using XAF made me more of a backend developer since most of the development work wasn’t visual—especially in the early versions, where the model designer was rudimentary (it’s much better now).
Eventually, I moved on to developing .NET libraries and NuGet packages, diving deep into SOLID design principles. Fun fact: I actually learned about SOLID from DevExpress TV. Yes, there was a time before YouTube when DevExpress posted videos on technical tasks!
Nowadays, I feel confident creating and publishing my own libraries as NuGet packages. However, my “old monster” was still lurking in the shadows: UI components. I finally decided it was time to conquer it, but first, I needed to choose a platform. Here were my options:
Windows Forms: A robust and mature platform but limited to desktop applications.
WPF: A great option with some excellent UI frameworks that I love, but it still feels a bit “Windows Forms-ish” to me.
Xamarin/Maui: I’m a big fan of Xamarin Forms and Xamarin/Maui XAML, but they’re primarily focused on device-specific applications.
Blazor: This was the clear winner because it allows me to create desktop applications using Electron, embed components into Windows Forms, or even integrate with MAUI.
Recently, I’ve been helping my brother with a project in Blazor. (He’s not a programmer, but I am.) This gave me an opportunity to experiment with design patterns to get the most out of my components, which started as plain HTML5 pages.
Without further ado, here are the key insights I’ve gained so far.
Building high-quality Blazor components requires attention to both the C# implementation and Razor markup patterns. This guide combines architectural best practices with practical implementation patterns to create robust, reusable components.
1. Component Architecture and Organization
Parameter Organization
Start by organizing parameters into logical groups for better maintainability:
public class CustomForm : ComponentBase
{
// Layout Parameters
[Parameter] public string Width { get; set; }
[Parameter] public string Margin { get; set; }
[Parameter] public string Padding { get; set; }
// Validation Parameters
[Parameter] public bool EnableValidation { get; set; }
[Parameter] public string ValidationMessage { get; set; }
// Event Callbacks
[Parameter] public EventCallback<bool> OnValidationComplete { get; set; }
[Parameter] public EventCallback<string> OnSubmit { get; set; }
}
Building effective Blazor components requires attention to both the C# implementation and Razor markup. By following these patterns and practices, you can create components that are:
Highly reusable
Performant
Accessible
Easy to maintain
Flexible for different use cases
Remember to adapt these practices to your specific needs while maintaining clean component design principles.
In modern software development, extending the functionality of a framework while maintaining its integrity and usability can be a complex task. One common scenario involves extending interfaces to add new events or methods. In this post, we’ll explore the impact of extending interfaces within the Sync Framework, specifically looking at IDeltaStore and IDeltaProcessor interfaces to include SavingDelta and SavedDelta events, as well as ProcessingDelta and ProcessedDelta events. We’ll discuss the options available—extending existing interfaces versus adding new interfaces—and examine the side effects of each approach.
Background
The Sync Framework is designed to synchronize data across different data stores, ensuring consistency and integrity. The IDeltaStore interface typically handles delta storage operations, while the IDeltaProcessor interface manages delta (change) processing. To enhance the functionality, you might want to add events such as SavingDelta, SavedDelta, ProcessingDelta, and ProcessedDelta to these interfaces.
Extending Existing Interfaces
Extending existing interfaces involves directly adding new events or methods to the current interface definitions. Here’s an example:
public interface IDeltaStore {
void SaveData(Data data);
// New events
event EventHandler<DeltaEventArgs> SavingDelta;
event EventHandler<DeltaEventArgs> SavedDelta;
}
public interface IDeltaProcessor {
void ProcessDelta(Delta delta);
// New events
event EventHandler<DeltaEventArgs> ProcessingDelta;
event EventHandler<DeltaEventArgs> ProcessedDelta;
}
Pros of Extending Existing Interfaces
Simplicity: The existing implementations need to be updated to include the new functionality, making the overall design simpler.
Direct Integration: The new events are directly available in the existing interface, making them easy to use and understand within the current framework.
Cons of Extending Existing Interfaces
Breaks Existing Implementations: All existing classes implementing these interfaces must be updated to handle the new events. This can lead to significant refactoring, especially in large codebases.
Violates SOLID Principles: Adding new responsibilities to existing interfaces can violate the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) and Interface Segregation Principle (ISP), leading to bloated interfaces.
Potential for Bugs: The necessity to modify all implementing classes increases the risk of introducing bugs and inconsistencies.
Adding New Interfaces
An alternative approach is to create new interfaces that extend the existing ones, encapsulating the new events. Here’s how you can do it:
Flexibility: New functionality can be selectively adopted by implementing the new interfaces where needed.
Cons of Adding New Interfaces
Complexity: Introducing new interfaces can increase the complexity of the codebase, as developers need to understand and manage multiple interfaces.
Redundancy: There can be redundancy in code, where some classes might need to implement both the original and new interfaces.
Learning Curve: Developers need to be aware of and understand the new interfaces, which might require additional documentation and training.
Conclusion
Deciding between extending existing interfaces and adding new ones depends on your specific context and priorities. Extending interfaces can simplify the design but at the cost of violating SOLID principles and potentially breaking existing code. On the other hand, adding new interfaces preserves existing functionality and adheres to best practices but can introduce additional complexity.
In general, if maintaining backward compatibility and adhering to SOLID principles are high priorities, adding new interfaces is the preferred approach. However, if you are working within a controlled environment where updating existing implementations is manageable, extending the interfaces might be a viable option.
By carefully considering the trade-offs and understanding the implications of each approach, you can make an informed decision that best suits your project’s needs.
Hello there! Today, we’re going to delve into the fascinating world of design patterns. Don’t worry if you’re not a tech whiz – we’ll keep things simple and relatable. We’ll use the SyncFramework as an example, but our main focus will be on the design patterns themselves. So, let’s get started!
What are Design Patterns?
Design patterns are like blueprints – they provide solutions to common problems that occur in software design. They’re not ready-made code that you can directly insert into your program. Instead, they’re guidelines you can follow to solve a particular problem in a specific context.
SOLID Design Principles
One of the most popular sets of design principles is SOLID. It’s an acronym that stands for five principles that help make software designs more understandable, flexible, and maintainable. Let’s break it down:
Single Responsibility Principle: A class should have only one reason to change. In other words, it should have only one job.
Open-Closed Principle: Software entities should be open for extension but closed for modification. This means we should be able to add new features or functionality without changing the existing code.
Liskov Substitution Principle: Subtypes must be substitutable for their base types. This principle is about creating new derived classes that can replace the functionality of the base class without breaking the application.
Interface Segregation Principle: Clients should not be forced to depend on interfaces they do not use. This principle is about reducing the side effects and frequency of required changes by splitting the software into multiple, independent parts.
Dependency Inversion Principle: High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions. This principle allows for decoupling.
Applying SOLID Principles in SyncFramework
The SyncFramework is a great example of how these principles can be applied. Here’s how:
Single Responsibility Principle: Each component of the SyncFramework has a specific role. For instance, one component is responsible for tracking changes, while another handles conflict resolution.
Open-Closed Principle: The SyncFramework is designed to be extensible. You can add new data sources or change the way data is synchronized without modifying the core framework.
Liskov Substitution Principle: The SyncFramework uses base classes and interfaces that allow for substitutable components. This means you can replace or modify components without affecting the overall functionality.
Interface Segregation Principle: The SyncFramework provides a range of interfaces, allowing you to choose the ones you need and ignore the ones you don’t.
Dependency Inversion Principle: The SyncFramework depends on abstractions, not on concrete classes. This makes it more flexible and adaptable to changes.
And that’s a wrap for today! But don’t worry, this is just the beginning. In the upcoming series of articles, we’ll dive deeper into each of these principles. We’ll explore how they’re applied in the source code of the SyncFramework, providing real-world examples to help you understand these concepts better. So, stay tuned for more exciting insights into the world of design patterns! See you in the next article!
Related articles
If you want to learn more about data synchronization you can checkout the following blog posts: