Michael Hunger wrote: > I also agree with Niclas. There is no point in restricting values to be > structs. > The power of expressive values is not to be underestimated.
Agree. > Regarding the possibilities of values and their equality perhaps we can take > some > points from scala's case classes? Those embody the structure of their > creation and > this information is also used for equals etc (was this other thing > constructed the > same way as me). > > (As a side note: This is also used for functional pattern matching and > accessing the > construction time information.) Right now I don't have any opinion on how to do this best, but Niclas' suggestion seemed logical enough for now. > Regarding the persistence of values. If the type information take too much > room we still can provide a custom serialization and have a lookup table for > type information which is stored within the serializing store as well (saved > on update) > and reloaded on startup. Well, I have now actually changed this so that no type information is included. The upside of this is that the only place you have to look at for type information for a persisted Entity is the EntityType, which contains all the ValueType information, hierarchically. Otherwise there was a risk of duplication and uncertainty what was the real one. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
