You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


A while back, I highlighted an issue we ran into where I had basically partially closed generic types. A common pattern in message- and command-based architectures is the concept of a handler for a message:

public interface IHandler<TEvent>
{
void Handle(TEvent args);
}

It’s a pattern with many names, but the basic concept is to separate the execution of a command from the representation of a command. We use it with our ActionResult objects, command messages and lots of other places where creating a parameter object separate from the method using the parameter object provides a great benefit. But as we used this pattern more and more, we would start to see duplication around certain types of commands. For example, we might have a command to delete a customer:

That’s all fine and dandy, but now I have to create another handler for every. single. entity. type. in. the. world. That’s duplication I’d like to avoid, especially since it provides absolutely zero value (other than extra code I have to maintain). Instead, I’d like to define a generalized command:

Up to this point, I’ve shown nothing new that I didn’t already have in that previous open generics post. The trick now is to hook up the right handler to the right message. In the last StructureMap post, I showed how to hook up IHandler<T> to the concrete implementation. But in this case, I don’t have a concrete implementation. I will request an IHandler<DeleteEntityCommand<Customer>> or Order or whatever, and I need to wire up a new concrete type, DeleteEntityCommandHandler<Customer> (or Order or whatever).

Because I have the issue where I don’t know the concrete type until it’s requested, I need to tell my IoC Container of choice (StructureMap) how to handle these requests.

Creating a custom registration convention

Quick note on StructureMap – internally, concrete types are matched up to requested types through configuration. StructureMap does a great job at reducing the amount of configuration through registration conventions, registries and configuration, but I still have to match up every concrete service type to a requested type. StructureMap (I believe) doesn’t let you wait until a type is requested to find its implementation, it already needs to know it beforehand.

So how does that affect me? For one, I only have one implementation, but it’s generic. I could literally have as many closed generic implementations as there are entities in my system, because each will get its own (correct) repository implementation.

The interesting thing about the “ConnectImplementationsToTypesClosing” method I highlighted last time is that this is actually just a helper method to use an existing IRegistrationConvention (previously TypeScanner in 2.5.3 and earlier). The IRegistrationConvention is a fairly simple interface:

During the scanning process, StructureMap will call any convention I add, passing in the type to check and a Registry object. If the type seems interesting to me, I’ll register the interface and implementation in the Registry object. So what do we need to do here?

Basically, we want to look for all subclasses of Entity, and register the delete command handler for that entity type. To do so, it will require some open generics magic:

First, I create some static members for all the open generic types I care about. Notably, the open command type, the open handler interface type, and the open command handler type. What I want to do is hook up all requests for IHandler<DeleteEntityCommand<Foo>> to the closed type DeleteEntityCommandHandler<Foo>. In the Process method, I look for all non-abstract subclasses of Entity, and close all the open types. Finally, I instruct StructureMap to wire up the closed interface (IHandler<>) to the closed implementation (DeleteEntityCommandHandler<>).

Hooking up our custom registration convention

In the last article, I hooked up the IHandler implementations. We’ll need to keep that, but additionally register not only the convention we created, but the repositories we use as part of the concrete handler:

To add a convention, I use the “Convention” method and pass in the convention type. To hook up the repositories, I add both the line to connect implementations for IRepository<>, as well as the “WithDefaultConventions”, which matches up ICustomerRepository to CustomerRepository. I don’t need that last part for this example, but is almost always included in most of my scanning operations.

It’s a lot of angle-bracket tax, but you never actually see this many angle-brackets. My application will push commands out, and a rather brainless command processor will locate handlers for the command, and execute them. With StructureMap (and IoC in general), I can start to really reduce duplication when that duplication is around the type varying, by prudent application of generics. Here, I’m not using generics for type safety, but to reinforce the DRY principle.

With a powerful IoC tool, I don’t have to compromise on my command processing design just because I have complex message/handler shapes. Instead, the command processor stays simple, and lets my IoC registration encapsulate all of the wiring.

About Jimmy Bogard

I'm a technical architect with Headspring in Austin, TX. I focus on DDD, distributed systems, and any other acronym-centric design/architecture/methodology. I created AutoMapper and am a co-author of the ASP.NET MVC in Action books.

to be instantiated automatically for each T satisfying the constraint ?
Our custom DI container do this by default for each such open generics with constraints
without any explicit conventions and it works pretty well in exactly same scenario – generic command handler for “entity deleted” message.

Ads

About Me

I'm the chief architect at Headspring in Austin, TX. I focus on DDD, distributed systems, and any other acronym-centric design/architecture/methodology. I created AutoMapper and am a co-author of the ASP.NET MVC in Action books.