Hey, I'm in Oslo, after the JavaZone conference, and am trying to catch up with my email. Very good discussions so far on both associations and aggregates!
Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Well, half my question is exactly that... If we require the > Association in the 1:1 relationship, why is that not required for the > 1:* case? Or the other way around, whichever suits your fancy. My > point is (I think), if Association is indeed a first class, required > citizen, then ManyAssociation should require Associations as the only > acceptable type in its collection (additional convenience methods can > of course exist to make it easier to use). ATM, *I* have lost track of > what we finally settled with on these issues and want it clarified. Well, ManyAssociation is also a first class concept, alongside Association, so there's no point in having them both together. It doesn't buy us anything. In fact, since Associations typically can be null, whereas putting a null into a ManyAssociation doesn't make sense, I don't see what it buys us to require ManyAssociation<Association<?>>. It also becomes confusing since ManyAssociation has metainfo methods and so does Association, so for one association there would be two ways to access it if both had to be used. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
