On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Niklas Uhrberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
]> I'm a but concerned about the term "role" in the discussion because
> roles are used for something else in modelling.
I agree that AssociationRole should probably be named something else.
Don't they use "stereotype" in UML (probably something else)?
> Possibly one would like to put start- and end dates on this association
> and this would motivate an association class between them as opposed to
> just a regular association.
Now you are touching on our starting point some months ago, which was;
public interface Spouse extends Association
{
Property<Date> startedDate();
:
}
Essentially, the association was a "typed link" with its own state.
I still like this very much, from a "understanding" point of view, but
we seemed to have opened a can of worms in respect to EntityStores
ability to implement it reasonably.
I am still not convinced that Rickard's new way is the best way
forward, and that perhaps some good'ol thinking on solving the
EntityStore problem would lead to something better... But I am willing
to go with this now, as it is A way forward right now.
Cheers
Niclas
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
