Michael Hunger wrote: > Sounds sensible altough I'd surely taken the other way round, perhaps > starting with one interface (perhaps with generics for the concept) and > only partioned it if needed.
Yeah, that might make sense, since there's little reuse anyway, i.e. the mixin interfaces are not reused at all since they are all different at all levels. > Why are the properties of the model mutable? Shouldn't most of them be > derived, precalculated properties that come directly from the used > interfaces, concepts, mixins, classes etc. The properties aren't mutable, hence the possibility at least to use ImmutableProperty. But not sure what the value of using "ImmutableProperty<Foo> someProperty()" over "Foo someProperty()", since we're not using anything from the Property API anyway. > So I'd rather opt in for not using mutable properties at all for these > attributes. I don't recall right now is Property based on > ImmutableProperty or the other way round? ImmutableProperty extends Property, where set() cannot be called. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
