On 21-Apr-09, at 07:02 , manuel aldana wrote:
Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
On 20-Apr-09, at 19:39 , Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
Now I get it. Thanks Christian!
All you said, to me, is one more reason to not inject services in
domain objects . . . :)
Yeah - that's such an anti-pattern. If you're injecting things
into value objects, you've probably not separated concerns well.
OK, some motivation to my approach:
Looking to DomainDrivenDesign I am putting behaviour to the domain-
objects. Internally I base this behaviour on interfaces, so I
decouple things.
Because I use dependency injection for my domain-object, why
shouldn't I use a dependency injection container like tapestry-ioc
then? I try to avoid coding these annoying factories myself.
Ok, I think there are two different kinds of logic here - pure
business logic, and plumbing. I don't think people are opposed to
putting pure domain logic or business logic into domain objects - but
these aren't things that would usually need factories. What you
shouldn't be putting into domain objects is plumbing, so to speak. So
maybe you're just wrapping up domain logic into components and
injecting them - I guess that's all-right, but I typically don't see
that sort of logic as separate from the domain objects, and wouldn't
probably make inject-able components out of it in the first place.
But anyway, as Thiago said, we should take this off-list, since it
isn't a general architecture discussion list.
Christian Edward Gruber
e-mail: christianedwardgru...@gmail.com
weblog: http://www.geekinasuit.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
