Any opinions on this thread... should we rename @Property/@Collection/@Action to @DomainProperty/DomainCollection/@DomainAction (along with corresponding @XxxLayout annotatoins)?
On the other current thread to decide between (option 1): @DomainEntity/@ViewModel vs option 3) @DomainObject we now have +3 votes for option 1 and +4 votes for optional 2. For those in favour of option 1, renaming the @Xxx etc annotations to @DomainXxx would result in these annotations appearing in classes annotated with @ViewModel. To my mind that doesn't feel consistent, so interested in any revised/new opinions. Thx Dan On 30 December 2014 at 10:48, Dan Haywood <[email protected]> wrote: > Thought I'd start a new thread for this question. > > Right now we've decided upon: > > @DomainService > @DomainObject, @DomainObjectLayout > @Property, @PropertyLayout > @Collection, @CollectionLayout > @Action, @ActionLayout > @Parameter, @ParameterLayout > > However, the "Collection" annotation conflicts with java.util.Collection, > and I can foresee "Property" and "Action" as being quite common in domain > applications (Estatio has "Property" for example). > > I therefore propose using "Domain" as a prefix: > > @DomainService > @DomainObject, @DomainObjectLayout > @DomainProperty, @DomainPropertyLayout > @DomainCollection, @DomainCollectionLayout > @DomainAction, @DomainActionLayout > @DomainParameter, @DomainParameterLayout > > I think this will make things even more grokkable and avoid naming > conflicts. > > Any objections? > > Thx > Dan > > > > >
