On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 18:45, Rickard Öberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you call "invasive" I would call "clear". Instead of having the old
> "everything is a POJO" attitude, we want to try and call a duck a duck,
> rather than using implicit rules.
Let's go back to use case for Cargo
public interface Cargo
{
Location destination();
Location origin();
}
public interface Location
{
UnLocode unlocode();
}
public interface LocationRepository
{
Location findLocation( UnLocode unlocode );
}
Are both Location and Cargo an entity?
If they're not entity. How are we supposed to represent Location, keep
Property<UnLocode> for both destination and origin?
Does that mean, don't use "association" if there is a repository
exists for that model?
> This discussion between you and Edward has been really discouraging,
> because it shows how easy it is to slip back into the old thinking. It
> also shows why it is important for us to have the somewhat elitistic
> approach to not let everyone into the core of Qi4j, because what we are
> trying to carefully construct can be brought down way too easily, out of
> sheer chance. I've seen it happen before too many times.
Sorry.
Although to be honest, it just raised more and more questions on how to do
this in "qi4j" way.
Regards,
Edward Yakop
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
