YES, your core business objects should be aware of the limitations.
Aspects are not part of your business model, and don't care about
rules and such (or at least they shouldn't!).

So, if you want to intercept method calls to perform validation,
that's a perfectly acceptable use of AOP. The important part is the
aspect itself doesn't do the validation - the aspect sees a detail
item coming in, and either calls validate() on it or passes it to some
validation service or rules engine or however you build your
application. Programming an aspect in this manner allows you to reuse
the validation/rule-enforcement business logic elsewhere in a more
direct fashion. The aspect just gives you a *different* way to weave
things together.

Does that help?

-Dave
On 7/4/06, Adam Haskell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This application sits outside of the POS terminal so this does not work with
payments or anything of the sort. It is strictly PSE purchase tracking and
reporting. Thankfully the business owners decided how to ID people; by State
ID, drivers license, or Passport number.

Stores are not limited to sales, customers are limited by federal and state
laws, and specific transaction are limited by federal and state laws. Sounds
like my original idea (a limitations object of sorts) is ok but you disagree
with it being an aspect b/c you think it is appropriate for the objects to
be aware of the limitations, where as by putting it in an aspect the objects
are unaware of the limitations that are being imposed on them (let me know
if I am reading that wrong).

That's the exact type of response I was looking for, should my core objects
be aware of the limitations? Sounds like you say yes they should be aware. I
appreciate the response, I don't know I am entirely convince one way or the
other still thinking about it, though the more I think about it I think I am
leaning towards it not being an aspect.

What if I threw in this. We have a similar application that tracks sales of
Ashley Furniture. Without getting into too much detail the same set of core
components could be used if I had the limitations through and aspect, or I
probably could extended the core components to work inside the PSE
application does this make any sense?

Adam



On 7/4/06, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> I would add this to the core business model. For me, aspects are cross
cutting concerns that decrease cohesion (a product shouldn't know about
logging, security or workflow, so those are the classic examples of AOP). To
me it is perfectly appropriate that a business object would know about these
limitations - even if you sell outside the US and this is a US only
limitation, I'd still put this into the model as a "US only rule".
>
> As to where it should go, it would depend on the business rule. The store
might know the total you can sell to all customers, a user might know they'd
bought too much within a day or a cart might know that it had too much in
that given cart. (BTW, good luck with the actual logic - how do you uniquely
define a customer when one person could have different email addresses,
shipping addresses and credit cards?!) If you needed more than one of these
rules implemented, you may make a call to a seperate object that would
encapsulate all of the PSE rules. I'm guessing you're also going to have to
extend the product business object to include a getPSE() method (the product
knows how much PSE it contains, but not how much the store, user or cart
contains, so a getter for that one piece of information is appropriate).
>
> Of course, you also need to make sure that your cart.add() method returns
the status of the add (you could also use this for people buying too much
stuff for their credit line or ordering more product than you have in
inventory or some other cases where cart.add() will fail) and probably an
error message so you can display the cart view with "Cart not updated
successfully: #ErrorMessage#"."
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Peter
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Haskell
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 5:10 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [CFCDev] Aspect or not?
>
> As some may know the lovely US gov't has put new laws in place limiting
the sale of Psuedoephedrine.  Right now I am in the process of reworking the
original application into Model Glue framework also using Coldspring. So
here is my question:
>
>  Right now the Application merrily has transaction and transaction detail
objects (among others). Each detail is added through an AJAX call to the
server. My thought right now is to put the code that determines if the
current detail can be added to the transaction into an aspect. The idea
being that the core objects do not change and the transaction object can
continue to happily append details, telling to persist ect. The aspect would
"sniff" the detail and if the detail can not be saved due to legal
limitation (too many grams of PSE or too many packages per day) the aspect
throws an error OverLimit and the application deals with it. My concern is
that by through the error I will end of having to deal with that in the
transaction object thus changing it anyway. Maybe that's an OK thing but I
need someone else to tell me that, or maybe some different suggestions. I
just need a reality check from people that have probably been doing this
more than me.
>
> Adam Haskell
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
> You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
[email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the
email.
>
> CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting
(www.cfxhosting.com).
>
> An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------
> You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
[email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the
email.
>
> CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (
www.cfxhosting.com).
>
> An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
[email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the
email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting
(www.cfxhosting.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]


----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to 
[email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the 
email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting 
(www.cfxhosting.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at 
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]


Reply via email to