On 05/12/2006, at 8:47 PM, Tom Chiverton wrote:
First, I have never seen examples or discussion of Cairngorm that
deals with this issue. In most cases the 'model' isn't much more than
a collection of dumb value objects without complex relationships.
I'm not sure you'd want your model to be very more complex.
Really? Maybe it's my upbringing but I seem to want this a lot. In
particular, when you want to model relationships and connections
between objects other than a simple containment type relationship. Or
when you want to describe objects with behaviour rather than only data.
Second, and more importantly, pretty much all the logic of Cairngorm
apps seems to reside in the Command and Delegate classes with not
much to speak about in the actual model. It seems to be the Commands
that end up manipulating the application data directly, and I'm a
little uncomfortable with this.
I think it's a good idea to stick all the logic in once obvious
place, and
then have that change the model, which uses data binding to make
things
change in the view.
Seems to me that the one obvious place for logic related to the
business domain is in the model. Not that commands aren't a good
idea; and I have no problem with using binding to update the view.
That's not really the issue. The issue is encapsulation of business
logic and guidelines for architecting the distributed domain model.
Cheers,
Lach
