Niklas Uhrberg wrote: > Rickard, is this variant more difficult to implement on your part (and > the entitystores)? > Would it still be straightforward to implement it with a "hidden entity" > under the hood?
Now this is an intriguing question. What if we instead of extending the Property/Association class instead use the Adapter or Decorator patterns, i.e. we don't change the Property/Association itself, just put something on top of it. > My second concern is this: association classes are not entities (which > we already discussed) and the fact that they get implemented with > entities will confuse and make the domain model blurred. I think this might be hidden away, although I also think that actually implementing them under the hood as entities is the easiest way to do it. I've done a little test impl of the above idea that I'll present in another email. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
