polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Merlin <p...@nosphere.org>
Subject Re: toValue() & toEntity()
Date Sat, 23 May 2015 16:26:02 GMT
Niclas Hedhman a écrit :
>> What about composites whose Identity impl comes from a private mixin?
> Well, for Entities, this is not possible. Since
> module.entities( Abc.class )...
> will ensure that the resulting Composite indeed implements EntityComposite,
> which is a subtype of Identity. The way the State is handled internally to
> the Composite, any "@This Identity id;" reference which users may perceive
> as a private mixin, will be the same Identity as the one implicitly
> introduced in the above method call. So, for any existing code, I don't
> think there is an issue.
> For non-entities, I think it is a non-issue and we simply require values to
> have public Identities.
Roger that.

>  > 3. Semantically, I don't think that the toEntity() should bother to
>>> validate (or modify) the referenced entity with the value held in the
>>> Association, just take the Identity as-is. I am thinking of the Rest API
>>> usecae, where the toValue() would only pass the identity back to the
>>> client, which avoids "pulling in everything".
>>> HOWEVER, it might make sense to make a distinction between a regular
>>> Association and an @Aggregated one...
>> Do you mean that (de)serialization of @Aggregated associations should
>> traverse them instead of only handling identities?
> Yes, that is a possible semantic option, which *I* don't have a strong
> opinion about yet. But if we relate @Aggregated to the Aggregate concept in
> DDD, which effectively requires that operations on Aggregates (but only on
> Aggregates) to be atomic, then it would make sense to traverse the entire
> entity graph and convert to Values...
At first sight I can't see why this could be problematic. And yes,
closer to DDD.

As a side note, the ElasticSearch state indexer do something like this
to record @Aggregated entities in order to ease traversal queries

What do you others think about this?


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message