I still think Gustavos solution is the right one.

Your updated repository version:

if(null == oneValue || null != otherValue) return false;

Does allways return false when otherValue is not null. And that does not seem right.

Besides that, I do like your implementation. Thank You!

-Christian

if(null == oneValue && null != otherValue) return false;

while my repository contained:

if(null == oneValue || null != otherValue) return false;

The latter seems to fix this issue. Thx a lot for the feedback.

Tag cl1 = new Tag(null);
Tag cl2 = new Tag(null);

try
{
Console.WriteLine(cl1.Equals(cl2));
Console.WriteLine(cl2.Equals(cl1));
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.ToString());
}

With my change that doesn’t fail

I guess this will slowly launch us in a frenzy of patenting our simplest bits of code on our blogs. It’s a bit like the frenzy with Joel Spolsky’s “Law of Leaky Abstractions” which is a piece of crap but I’ve seen it quoted quite a few times. Suddenly, the stupidest of bloggers could claim they’ve recognized a subtle law in some aspect of their work.

Look. The GoF didn’t claim they invented the patterns. They but cataloged them. The DDD community shouldn’t claim to have popularized the Value Object, except maybe to the .NET programmers. And this or that way of doing generic value objects aren’t this or that guy’s idea; they’re age old by now, really.

Thanks for posting per my right to dissent and to keep our put into our less wary readers some sense of personality.

Gustavo.