cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rob Parker" <>
Subject Re: Cocoon2 Design
Date Wed, 31 May 2000 12:48:17 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: Stefano Mazzocchi <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Cocoon2 Design

> Concerns should _not_ forced to be separated, but only when they belong
> to different to different concern groups.
> For example, suppose you have a URI of the form
>  /sql/employees/add
> (I know it's ugly, just an example) which indicates what technology you
> are using. Then if you change the technology, you have to change your
> URI. This is not different from having an extention on the URI itself.
>  /employees/add.sql
> But if you do
>  /employees/add
> alone, you are both indicating you want the "resource that allows me to
> add an employee". No matter what technology you use, you are still in
> shape and you URI doesn't require to change.
> So, to summarize: contracts should not change and all development and
> design must be done to enforce this.

Agree - This is a classic example of the dependency inversion principle
[R.Martin] which states;
Implementation details should depend on abstractions, not abstractions
depend on implementation details.



View raw message