Perhaps our Layers are more of Eric's bounded contexts?
Am 12.03.2009 6:59 Uhr, schrieb Rickard Öberg: > Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> Yes, that makes sense, AND allows for codebase modularity as well, >> without cyclic dependencies at that level. > > Yup, pretty much. > >> 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. > > For now, I agree. Since the hexagonal architecture can be still applied > with the "layers as directed graph" rule, it's still "ok", I think. The > property of layers that they "use stuff that comes in" and "shows stuff > that can be used" still applies, which is useful. In SCA terms it would > probably just be a "Component", but that feels a bit too generic. > > /Rickard > > _______________________________________________ > qi4j-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
