On Nov 10, 2:30 am, "Stuart McCulloch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/10 Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> > > For this case there is indeed little difference between the anemic
> > > model and rich model. But for this specific use-case I would flip the
> > > question on you and ask: what do you benefit from a anemic model?
> > > Given
> > > the point of using C-style functions and global variables versus OOP
> > > why
> > > wouldn't you go for OOP every time?
>
> > The anemic model will produce a well defined wire format that collects
> > all the data for a Person together. This allows that data to flow
> > through as many layers/tiers/servers as necessary and be worked on by
> > anything that understands that class of data. In the end, a large
> > distributed system is going to be a collection of functions that work
> > on classes of data.
>
> > I find myself coming back to this pattern more and more, but never
> > taking that step over to fully functional languages. I think the
> > reason is both due to the ability to organize and encapsulate in OO.
> > And, I would definitely not use C as a base line. There are many far
> > more elegant functional languages than C.
>
> > I also still use rich-objects at times. It is just not something I
> > force myself to use for everything. I find that model too restrictive
> > and not very pragmatic. But, there are still many benefits that I can
> > achieve from OO concepts like extension, aggregation, polymorphism and
> > the like. I just find that they also work well with anemic objects and
> > highly functional services. I guess in the end I don't find OO and
> > functions to be opposing ideals. They are tools I mix and match to
> > suit the task at hand.
>
> > One idea I've been tossing around lately is a new approach with a
> > separation of data and function. Not sure what it would look like or
> > how it would work, but it seems interesting to me. It would allow you
> > to define a data class such as Human, but have that Human behave like
> > a Infant at one point in time and a Teenager later. In the reverse,
> > the Infant might need Human data, but also other data classes to
> > function properly. Then later on the Teenager might also need the
> > Human data, but other data to function.
>
> > Need to think about it for another year or so to figure it all out. ;)
>
> FWIW this is exactly the motivation behind Qi4j - context based behaviour...
>
> http://www.qi4j.org/introduction.html
>
> there's a mailing list (seehttp://www.qi4j.org/26.htmlfor
> subscription/archives)
> where the design is regularly discussed and refined, and if you're familiar
> with
> DDD concepts then you should feel right at home
>
> Rickard's also going to be presenting the latest updates at this year's
> Øredev
>
> --
> Cheers, Stuart
Very nice. I'll Take a look. Half a year I checked DDD solutions to my
masters but I didnt find QI4J.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"google-guice" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
