Rakesh: I read the DDD book with interest especially with all the hype around it. What really puzzled me a lot is exactly what you talked about: Passing services into the domain object (especially persistence services) seems to be understood as DDD but in the book and all the sample applications Repositories (IMHO just another term for DAO) are used for persistence. I don't know where this came from but it's (at least to my understanding) clearly not promoted by the book. I think there's a lot of uncertainty around the whole DDD term and if you think about it.. save() is not really a business method.
Cheers, Sebastian On 29 Jul., 17:29, Rakesh <[email protected]> wrote: > Stay with the 'classic' approach. > > I've been on a couple of projects now where they avoided this approach > (fuelled by having read Eric Evans book) and caused no end of > problems. In the end, it was refactored to something resembling the > layered approach anyway. > > This anemic domain model anti-pattern is blown out of all proportion. > Its a 'style' thing more than anything else as far as i can see. Most > apps are essentially a web-front end to a database anyway and can be > built quite successfully with an anemic domain model. > > Its all about judgement. Domain objects for example contain business > logic but this logic should only works against the attributes of the > domain object. > > Passing in services to the domain object is a step too far - the class > needs loads more tests and violates Single Responsibility Principle > (which after DRY, is the second most important principle). > > So, stick with the classic approach until something better comes along > - and sorry, but Eric Evans book is not it. Its a set of analysis > ideas rather than implementation principles and even then he says use > it for the most complex parts of your app. > > No project failed because it used the layered approach. It failed > because of inexperienced devs, poor requirements, impossible > deadlines, etc. > > R > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Mwanji Ezana<[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 29, 12:40 pm, Michael Neale <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No you are not - you are unfortunately perfectly sane and right to > >> question this crazyness. I say unfortunately as you probably have > >> overenthusastic colleagues that will drive your project into the > >> weeds. > > > Well, I'm really happy that today we came to a reasonable compromise. > > A better world is possible! :) > > > Moandji --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
