On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Kent Sølvsten wrote:
>> But I think that a merge on a whole UoW would be a really nice feature, >> sometimes it is really useful to separate stuff between 2 transactions and >> still allow them to see each others changes. >> With a "changeset-based" model, a merge should probably not be too >> difficult either. > > True, that should be reasonably easy to accomplish. Would we then replay the > events on a single entity so that it is the merge of others changes and ones > own? That could definitely get into an invalid state... the alternative > would be that IF it has changed, then get the others state entirely. Which > could still invalidate aggregate root rules. But with merge(), that's just > how it is... And I think if merge() exist as an implicit method, we can provide a MergeResolver (service?) interface for people to hook into for their particular case, and some simple ones could be provided 'out-of-the-box'. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
