To make all fragments only contextual ones ( the .withConcerns() declarations in assembly) is out of the question. It is too difficult to get an overall picture of things hang together.
The contextual fragments are meant for things that the developer doesn't need to know when reviewing the domain model, a bit like AOP is promoted to OOP developers. -- Niclas On 4 Dec 2009 22:40, "Stanislav Muhametsin" <[email protected]> wrote: Quoting Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]>: > Stanislav, > > What Rickard is discussing is that for Constraints it is possible to declare > on t... Aah, well I think I understood most of it, but I didn't find any clear opinion on whether any of pros/cons he represented was more common / important than others. And how it all would generally fit into idea of core developers of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. That said, purely from coding-perspective and 'using Qi4j', making Concerns like Constraints in declaration-matter, would make some things easier / more elegant / more consistent. Speaking of declaration of fragments, how about wild idea of making all mixin/concern/side-effect declarations contextual ones? Or would that be too much bother for application-developers? :) _______________________________________________ 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
