Good consensus for me also :)
> El 3/1/2015, a las 18:48, Branham, Jeremy [HR] <jeremy.d.bran...@sprint.com> > escribió: > > This is a good compromise IMHO. > > > Jeremy D. Branham > Tel: **DOTNET > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Haywood [mailto:d...@haywood-associates.co.uk] > Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 7:27 AM > To: users > Cc: d...@isis.apache.org > Subject: Re: ISIS-970 ... (new annotations) please review if you get a > chance... > >> On 3 January 2015 at 13:14, Jeroen van der Wal <jer...@stromboli.it> wrote: >> >> >> I have one more thought: since @ViewModel and >> @DomainObject(nature=UI_VIEW) are the same concepts it might be more >> intuitive to use >> @DomainObject(nature=VIEW_MODEL) > > Yes, that probably does make sense; we are just providing two equivalent > syntaxes for describing a (UI) view model. > > So the revised proposal is: > > for the UI/app layer, retain/introduce: > * @ViewModel > * @ViewModelLayout > > for the domain layer: > * @DomainObject(nature=JDO_ENTITY | EXTERNAL_ENTITY | VIEW_MODEL) > * @DomainObjectLayout > > for both: > * @Property(domainEvent=..., ) and @PropertyLayout > * @Collection(domainEvent=..., ) and @CollectionLayout > * @Action(domainEvent=..., ) and @ActionLayout > * @Parameter and @ParameterLayout > > where @ViewModel and @DomainObject(nature=VIEW_MODEL) are basically > equivalent; choose whichever notation you prefer (and use a metamodel > validator to exclude the other). > > > thx > Dan > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole > use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the > message.
