Beware the common infrastructure
One of the common problems that I run into when consulting with clients, or just whenever I am talking to developers in general is the notion of common infrastructure. “We are going to spend some time building a common infrastructure which we can then use on all of our applications.”
I made that mistake myself with Rhino Commons, and again very recently with RaccoonBlog (look at the code, you see the Loci stuff, that is stuff that is used from another project).
Why is that a problem? Well, for the simplest reason of all. Different projects have different needs. A common infrastructure that tries to accommodate them all is going to be much more complex. Not only that, it is going to be much more brittle. If I am modifying it in the context of project A, can I really say that I didn’t break something for project B?
Let us take a simple example, executing tasks. In RaccoonBlog, we need tasks merely to handle comments and email (long running background tasks). In another application, we need to do retries, and we need to get notifications if after N retries, the task have failed. In a third project, we need a way to specify dependencies between tasks.
Sure, you can build something that satisfy all three projects, but it would be drastically more complex than having to modify the original task executer for each project needs. And yes, I do mean copying the code and modifying it.
And no, it is not a horrible sin against the Little Endianness. Even duplicated N times, the code is going to be simpler to read, perform faster, easier to maintain and modify over time.
Nitpicker note: I am not talking about 3rd party libraries here. If you can find something that fits your needs that already exists, wonderful. I am talking about infrastructure that you build, inside your organization.