Could you unpack that a bit further? Are you suggesting that applicability of interfaces is primarily around behavior rather than as a means to describe the entities and value-types? I started the project working on the behavioral aspects and it was convenient for testing to rough in the domain objects being acted on by those behaviors as interfaces. So, I suspect that may fall into the category of anti-pattern if I'm understanding you right. On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Greg Young <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Are you interfaces like ICustomer IOrder etc or are they behavioral / > use case based? > > the former is most likely an anti-pattern. > > Greg > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:51 PM, everettmuniz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > For those of you using NHibernate in DDD projects do you structure > > your factory and repository methods to return/accept interfaces or > > their implementations? I've written the domain model and service > > layer in my current project to rely heavily on interfaces rather than > > implementations but given that NHibernate maps to classes and not > > interfaces it seems like it may make more sense to structure the > > factories / repositories to at least work with classes rather than the > > interfaces they're based on. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought > without accepting it. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" 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/nhusers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
