Gang, I often put Configuration entities in a dedicated module/layer in order to store them in a distinct EntityStore or simply because configuration is an important aspect of an application and having a configuration module/layer make sense to me.
First, what do you think about that? It's actually difficult to write reusable Assemblies that contain Configuration entities. I ended up using two Assemblers for an assembly: one for all composites except Configuration entities and another one with Configuration entities only. What would you think about using this "pattern" accross the whole SDK? This could help the SDK, examples and documentation to be more consistent. By the way, in complex assemblies motivated by modularity, like in the SQL support, defining the assembled Services identities in the Assembler constructor allows for easier and stricter Application assembly. It could be another convention applied to the whole SDK (still providing constructors without ids to ease simple use cases). Like any convention question, it needs feedback. Tell me what you think. /Paul _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
