Thank you Niclas and Rickard.
If I use Factory, doesn't this mean the factory class is still visible in
the client class?
Or we create app-specific factory classes which in turn calls Qi4J ?
Rickard Öberg-3 wrote:
>
> On 2010-02-02 00.40, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>> 1. The code to create an object ("composite instance") seem to be
>>> complex.
>>> How do we create Qi4j-powered objects from inside objects? Should we tie
>>> to
>>> Qi4j API?
>>
>> Factories?
>
> Agree, use DDD Factories and Repositories if you want to hide Qi4j.
>
>>> 4. With regard to DCI, what are the pros and cons of using Qi4j for it
>>> versus compile-time AspectJ weaving? I'm also just watched DCI
>>> presentation,
>>> but I think for (perhaps) 80% of time AspectJ is sufficient with only
>>> 20%
>>> work involved in setting up Qi4j / overhead. With compile-time weaving,
>>> AspectJ has zero runtime overhead, and with AspectJ-integrated IDE it
>>> also
>>> has low development effort.
>>
>> AspectJ and other AOP frameworks can be great but misses the point to
>> some degree. First of all the "What is the base object?"-question,
>> which we have concluded is "nothing". But more importantly, it is
>> nearly impossible to do Qi4j-like composition, since you would fully
>> depend on naming conventions for the weaving, which are extremely
>> fragile when refactoring.
>
> One of the main problems with AOP/AspectJ is that it doesn't cover the
> persistence part. You can't (AFAIK) mix in roles with state and have
> AspectJ handle that properly. To me that is huge issue. Qi4j has been
> made with persistence of domain models in mind from the start.
>
> /Rickard
>
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/4-Qi4j-questions-on-%3A-Qi4j-inside-objects%2C-IoC-integration%2C-GAE%2C-Qi4j-vs.-AspectJ-tp27407139p27429787.html
Sent from the Qi4j-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
