denis lutz wrote: > > Hi guys, > > i am starting to work with sculptor. Fist of all, "greate job" to Patrik > and many thanks. > I was wondering how many people criticized sculptor on the server side > :confused: not understandable for me.... Only the point that sculptor is > integrating MDSD, TDD and DDD within one step! Is beating everything. =). > > Thanks, I appreciate the positive feedback.
denis lutz wrote: > > Since Domain Driven Development is a basis theory to work with editor i > worked through the DDD-Quickly book (specially patterns in chapter 3). > > The most things are clear, my last problem is to really differ between the > Entites and ValueObjects, specially considering concrete code examples > from sculptor. > DDD is saying: "Entities are root of an aggregate and there are mutable. > Value Objects are part of their inner object tree , can be accessed only > through an entity and are immutable". Ok... > > Question: > I habe an VO within an aggregate with 5 attributes and i want to change > only one attribute, what should i do now? Create a complete new VO with 5 > attributes, since the VO has no setters? I can access the VO though the > root entity this is ok, but to create a concrete new VO makes no sense for > me. > Yes, if you stick to immutable value objects, you have to create a new instance, another value. Immutable value objects are recommended by DDD, and is the default for sculptor, but you can make it mutable. The design decision is yours. http://fornax-platform.org/cp/display/fornax/3.+Advanced+Tutorial+%28CSC%29#3.AdvancedTutorial%28CSC%29-Changeable denis lutz wrote: > > Further Problem: I want to use OpenSessioninView and directly access my > DomainObjects in the GUI with e.g. JSF, wich is typically expecting > setters in all POJO's, but my VO from an aggregate have again only private > setters. What is the best solution in this case? > In the Sculptor CRUD GUI we have solved this by generating separate form bean classes, which in the beginning feels a lot like a plain copy of the corresponding domain objects, but this is one of the reasons why we decided to use that approach. They also solves the more tricky issues with management of associations in a way the suites the web framework. denis lutz wrote: > > The BasicTypes seems to be more clear, since a basic type can be > considered as an e.g. String? And they have usually only one or two > attributes it make sense to say i will create a new one. Is this correct? > > If you have some links to examples about this issue, this would be nice. > > Thx in advance, > > Denis > > Another thread here: http://www.nabble.com/Hibernate-mapping-in-Sculptor-to14729015s17564.html#a14729015 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Sculptor%3A-DDD%2C--Entity-ValueObject-BasicType-tp16080689s17564p16082896.html Sent from the Fornax-Platform mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Fornax-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fornax-developer
