On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 14:27, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote: > So, is it just a matter of that; "For the strong domain model we have > a pure behavioral model, which somewhere under the hood of each object > has state which is not exposed. And then in another context (state > view), we allow that state to be retrieved directly." ?
IIUC, In the other link that Tao gave, it seems that the other system (application? in our context?) doesn't have access to state directly. Instead, each sub system will be notified for each state changes, do some transformations and persist. And then, each sub system will access their own data stores. > Hmmm, that works up until the point where there is divergence between > the two contexts. Maybe the suggestion is that we do context mapping > (using Hibernate et al) solve the denormalized state view context from > the normalized behavioral context. OR, maybe the solution is that the > state view context is "simple" so it is just a "conformist" context to > the behavioral context. Or do we, with the powerful decoration > mechanisms in Qi4j, maintain a state view model by clever under the > covers Property mapping in runtime (instead of ORM techniques)? *blank* > I also strong think that his approach will have us think heavily into > the role of the whole message and 'tell, don't ask' pattern in Qi4j. > Messages have not been fully ironed out, so I think the timing of all > of this is pretty good. Agree. Regards, Edward Yakop _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
