On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:16:40 PM UTC, Kasey Speakman wrote: > > > http://blog.ploeh.dk/2013/12/03/layers-onions-ports-adapters-its-all-the-same/ >
I agree with this. I was very happy to see in the first couple of paragraphs a description of what usually goes wrong in OO implementations - inverting the dependency between the data layer and the domain. This is the pattern I am currently using. http://blog.ploeh.dk/2016/03/18/functional-architecture-is-ports-and-adapters/ > Was pretty interesting. I agree that somehow implementing in a functional way makes the layering seem less onerous. A case of serendipity that the awkwardness of IO in functional languages tends to make this pattern a natural one. To some extent, this also applies to a UI in Elm. The 'domain' of a UI is related to but not identical to the domain of the services it consumes - but there is still a domain. In Elm we implement that with our model, use the type system to try and constrain it to dissallow illegal states, and generally provide a set of convenience functions for manipulating the model or extracting features of interest from it. The view is a port. The interface onto the service, with its HTTP endpoints and encoder/decoders is another port. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
