Hi David, I would ask a slightly different question: does Isis assist with DDD as explained by Evans as a means of "tackling complexity" (the root of what makes big projects fail I believe)?.
In fact its slightly disturbing to me to hear this talk of UML "design-time" tools and of round-tripping, that is, if learning by coding and refactoring a design (as code) is the essence of 'agile' DDD. In fact I spent alot of time looking into this and decided that UML and MDA particularly were not that helpful, for that reason. If they were we'd have moved to executable UML. I think a bigger problem is that people use OO when its not actually the best kind of language for their specific problem. To answer your question though, I'd say its the naked objects approach more than use of OO per se that aids that, you focus more on the objects than on specific use-cases. If that is done an anaemic design seems improbable. On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:30 AM, David Tildesley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I am looking for reasons why Apache ISIS framework promotes and enables a > "rich domain model" [1] [2] and therefore promotes OO design. > > And of course any reasons to the contrary (i.e. things that ISIS does that > gets in the way of OO design). > > Or is it simply neutral? i.e. developer choice. > > Regards, > David. > > [1] > https://www.link-intersystems.com/blog/2011/10/01/anemic-vs-rich-domain-models/ > [2] http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html >
