yes, that seems clear by your example. Nevertheless I am currently
thinking about pros and cons of a repository. Though this has not
been used in your examples I could think of the need for different
One think that's maybe not clear, is that the repository would track
the mappings of Pojo *instances* and PojoMetaData *instances*, not
the classes. This, to ensure that each pojo instance always has the
same meta-data instance.
validations for one single pojo.
Your default way would either be the current way it is implemented
in rife or
an optional (and direct) relationship between
com.mypackage.ThisPojo and
com.mypackage.ThisPojoMetaData
But think of different users with different rights. One who could
enter a new data object and one who may modify everything (e.g.
admin). Though this could be achieved by if statements it would be
an option if validation A would allow to enter anything but the mId
in your example and validation B would allow to alter that mID also.
Please note that this is just an idea. Maybe that will not be
required by any real world applications but is an option that would
let me prefer a repository to alter the default settings. So if
such an entry does exist that one will be taken otherwise the
default behaviour will be used.
I think that this logic is more the responsibility of the business
logic, not the meta-data declaration. If you want to handle this in a
cross-concern matter, AOP seems like a good approach for this.
--
Geert Bevin Uwyn bvba
"Use what you need" Avenue de Scailmont 34
http://www.uwyn.com 7170 Manage, Belgium
gbevin[remove] at uwyn dot com Tel +32 64 84 80 03
PGP Fingerprint : 4E21 6399 CD9E A384 6619 719A C8F4 D40D 309F D6A9
Public PGP key : available at servers pgp.mit.edu, wwwkeys.pgp.net
_______________________________________________
Rife-users mailing list
Rife-users@uwyn.com
http://www.uwyn.com/mailman/listinfo/rife-users
