On 26 August 2011 16:28, Scott Harvey <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So you keep your Rails models as simply a data-access later, and move all > > domain logic to a mirrored set of classes that are easy to unit test in > > isolation? > > Yeah, that's how I understand it. > > I think naming the mirrored classes might get annoying but I'm sure > you could come up with some system that would work. > > The other benefit I can see it that your 'mirrored' classes will only > implement the methods you need for your application so you would have > a clearly defined DSL for the application. > > This is how a lot of Java apps are architected. I don't mean that in a bad way at all. It's a valid idea. I might give it a try on my next project. > Again, it all sounds good in theory but I'm yet to see it in practice. > > Scott > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en. > > -- James -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
