Thanks Stephen,
Certainly the intention of DDD is to make it easier for a development team to
focus on a "rich domain model" and therefore OO design principles.
I agree Naked Objects approach facilitates the focusing on the domain model as
an intention.
And so both DDD and Naked Objects have the same intention. Another way of
putting it is that they both strive to remove the "distractions" that derail
the domain model.
You could also say the same about UML class model to code intention - the
intention is to remove the technical "distractions" so that everyone can focus
on the domain model with the basic use of UML representing the "just enough"
domain model design.
One of the main influencers on an efficient and loosely coupled (rich) domain
model shape is domain behaviour (actual problem domain behaviour - beyond the
basic setters and getters) e.g. calculateXXX(...).
Regards,David.
On Monday, 16 November 2015 10:54 AM, Stephen Cameron
<[email protected]> wrote:
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
>
