On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Rickard Öberg<[email protected]> wrote:
> Like Edward said, this needs to be related to the domain, rather than the > service, isn't it? How to do that I'm not really sure though.. Ok, good point. Ideas are welcome, but I also think the current approach will stay. Possible solutions; a. Service for management of named queries. b. Meta-info on modules/layers. c. Named Queries stored as entities and retrieved. d. ?? > I have begun to realize that a major flaw in the general thinking about the > Query API is that, along the thinking of the CommandQuery separation > discussion on the DDD list, there is not generally a relation between the > domain model and queries. If there is, that's a coincidence more than > anything else. The reason is that the queries support the clients view and > the operations to be performed, which is not necessarily related to how the > domain model is structured. I have this case myself now, where the queries > to support the client are sort of different from how the domain model is > constructed. The client has "views" of the domain model, rather than the > domain model. In this case there is meaning to "use the domain model" to > construct the query where-expression. Ok, it seems like an extension of having the "client context" being 'implemented' by the domain model, that we kind of are getting to at that level. Perhaps a brain-storm session is in order one of these days, since this touches not only on Named Queries but also on regular queries. 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
