On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM, aj...@virginia.edu <aj...@virginia.edu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Comments in-line.
Yup.
> - ---
> A. Soroka
> Software & Systems Engineering :: Online Library Environment
> the University of Virginia Library
>
> On Mar 30, 2012, at 8:45 AM, Chris Wilper wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I see how a domain model's accuracy could be degraded by
>> increasing
> the atomicity of the persistence entities.
>
> It's the multiplication of identities for purposes of workflow that troubles
> me.
> It may very well be that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, so I welcome
> comment about this. I'm mildly worried that people will find themselves with
> content modeling that is based both on their actual content and in their needs
> for transactionality, when ideally, notions of transactionality in Fedora
> would
> be adjustable so that such needs could be addressed after content modeling
> is done.
Hmmm...I've been doing a little thinking on this and I think part of
the difficulty here is that it's easy to conflate domain models and
content models in Fedora. Because I agree that domain modeling should
generally be well removed from storage considerations, but I'm not
sure it's practical to do it to nearly the same degree for pure
content modeling.
>> Stepping back for a second, I think it's interesting that the line between
>> datastream and object has become less distinct in recent
>> years. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, and it makes me question the
>> value of continuing to treat datastreams as second-class citizens in the
>> architecture. Are there good pure domain modeling reasons? Information
>> hiding is all I can think of, but that seems like a concern you'd want to
>> layer on top of whatever persistence mechanism you had at your disposal.
>> In other words, you're welcome to think of a certain set of your Fedora
>> objects as private members of some other set of Fedora objects.
>
> Amen! I wasn't going to open that question as part of this discussion, but
> since you've
> already gone there... {grin} The inception of 4.x seems to me to be a great
> time to step
> back, look at the Fedora architecture itself (as distinct from Fedora Commons
> as a
> software project) and its object model, and ask ourselves some deep questions
> about
> where we want to take it. But perhaps we can start this as a separate
> conversation
> and cross-reference them as needed?
Either way's fine with me. But yes, I think this is probably as
appropriate time as any we're going to find to step back and ask the
deep questions about the architecture.
> [..] But talk is cheap, so let's have some. {grin}
That reminds me, I need to cut this reply short and put the committer
call page up :)
- Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to
monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second
resolution app monitoring today. Free.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Fedora-commons-developers mailing list
Fedora-commons-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-developers
