On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > the UI layer has to be split into two: one with the > controller and one with the view.
Yes, that makes sense, AND allows for codebase modularity as well, without cyclic dependencies at that level. So, what is that Status now? Are we keeping "Layer" terminology and don't allow network graphs, or are we scrapping Layer and fall into 'anything goes', which would then raise the question; We have a container of Modules, where Modules are 'any to any' but the higher container is directed graph. Should we have one or both of such containers, and should that be extended indefinitely. Personally, I think the "Layered Architecture" is well understood and easily accepted, and I think I want to keep it until more overwhelming evidence of a better metaphor emerges. Cheers Niclas -- http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
