On 2009-12-04 22.39, Stanislav Muhametsin wrote:
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'.
As I try to tell my kids, there is no "good" and "bad", there is only "action" and "consequence". When you start thinking in good/bad terms, it usually turns out black/white, and hence useless, since reality is mostly gray.
Indeed, there is no clear conclusion from the arguments I presented, since there is no good/bad. The main question is what consequences we prefer the most. I'm not decided on that one.
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.
And also less deterministic, since we know from AOP experience that Concern ordering is often important, yet hard to handle if everything is declared separately. Constraints don't have this problem, since the order there is never important.
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? :)
Yes. In my own case I've actually started doing the opposite: role interfaces have the implementations as inner class and declared directly as @Mixins(Mixin.class) on the interface, so the coupling is very tight. 99% of the times, this is the correct thing to do, and for the other case(s) I declare the mixin on the Entity instead.
/Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
