Re: ISIS-486: modal dialogs for action prompts
Really well-looking, Jeroen.
Regarding navigability through actions, I think that perhaps there are 2
distinct use cases that should be treated differently as such:
1. The user creates an Aggregate Root (such as an Order). As such, normally
want to navigate to the newly created one.
2. The user creates an Entity that is part of an Aggregate (such as an Order
Line / Item). In this case, normally the user wants to stay on the Order by
default. If not, he/she can always navigate by clicking on the item collections
link to the newly created item.
Implementing that desired default behavior by Isis could be easily done with an
annotation that can be associated with an action, such as @NotNavigate (sure
there are better names :-).
By default, the Isis framework viewers open the action's returned entity (such
as when invoking Orders.createOrder(...) ), but that behavior could be
overridden annotating with @NotNavigate the ( Order.createItem(...) ) action:
public class Order {
...
@NotNavigate
public OrderItem createItem(...) {
...
}
}
Currently, we are forced to choose to return void or return an object, as that
mandates the Isis viewer behavior. With that annotation, the value returned
does not always imposes the navigation behavior.
Perhaps there are better solutions or some pitfalls on this proposal.
HTH,
Oscar
El 02/12/2013, a las 22:57, Jeroen van der Wal jer...@stromboli.it escribió:
Thanks for reminding Dan, screenshot now as link [1]
[1]
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1930710/Attachments/Screen%20Shot%202013-12-02%20at%2010.03.35%20PM.png
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Dan Haywood
d...@haywood-associates.co.ukwrote:
Hi Jeroen,
Screenshots get stripped from the mailing list, so you'll need to post it
somewhere online. How about updating the screenshots on Estatio's README?
By the way, I have a further commit... discovered that default values for
parameters are not honoured second time around (ie bring up an action
prompt, then cancel, then bring it up again).
Cheers
Dan
On 2 December 2013 21:17, Jeroen van der Wal jer...@stromboli.it wrote:
The modal dialog really improves the usability, thanks Dan. I've attached
attached a screenshot which tells more then thousand words.
I just recently learned that you can use java.lang.Object as the return
type of an action and return whatever domain object or collection you
programmatically decide. So your action basically is the controller.
Nice!
Sounds familiar to what Oscar is doing.
Cheers,
Jeroen
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.com wrote:
Good done.
We also use modal dialogs on our custom viewer to avoid context
switching. The same dialog redirects to a Domain Object if that's the
result of the action invocation, or currently shows a Collection in a
grid
on the same dialog if that's the result of the action. The user can then
navigate to any of the objects in the collection.
El 02/12/2013, a las 17:54, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk
escribió:
Hi folks,
just an fyi that I've committed and pushed ISIS-486 [1], to render the
Wicket viewer's action prompts in modal dialogs. This should make
for
a
better overall user experience.
To use, you'll need to build from source, as per [2].
In case there are issues, the old behaviour (action prompts on their
own
page) can be enabled by adding the following property:
isis.viewer.wicket.disableModalDialogs=true
into WEB-INF/viewer_wicket.properties (or isis.properties if you
prefer).
I'll probably remove this original behaviour before pushing out a
final
release, though.
Cheers
Dan
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-486
[2] http://isis.apache.org/contributors/building-isis.html
Re: ISIS-486: modal dialogs for action prompts
That's an interesting idea, Oscar.
The issue arises from the fact that there are potentially two different
callers of the Order#createItem method:
a) the Isis framework itself - in which case, as we all know, the signature
of the methdo is used to determine presentation/navigation
b) other domain objects, ie programmatic interaction. In some cases the
caller might want the aggregate root (Order), at other times the aggregated
(OrderItem).
Actually, being strict about (b), under DDD the aggregate root should never
return one of its constituent parts. That would argue that even for
programmatic interactions (b) the method should only return Order, not
OrderItem.
If we relax that rule, though, then one solution is to split out the method
according to its two different callers, and have one method delegate to the
other; eg:
public class Order {
public Order createItem( ... ) {
doCreateItem(...);
return this;
}
@Programmatic
pubilc OrderItem doCreateItem( ) {
OrderItem item = ...
...
return item;
}
}
I suspect the above pattern/idiom is sufficient in many cases.
But if that seems like too much boilerplate, and we really did want to have
a single method (such that Isis renders the Order even though an OrderItem
is returned) then I think I'd prefer to simply annotate which of our
entities are aggregate roots, ie
@AggregateRoot
public class Order { ... }
Then, the rule would be that if the returned object does not have the
AggregateRootFacet, then we instead navigate to the target aggregate root.
Thoughts?
Dan
On 3 December 2013 10:01, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.comwrote:
Really well-looking, Jeroen.
Regarding navigability through actions, I think that perhaps there are 2
distinct use cases that should be treated differently as such:
1. The user creates an Aggregate Root (such as an Order). As such,
normally want to navigate to the newly created one.
2. The user creates an Entity that is part of an Aggregate (such as an
Order Line / Item). In this case, normally the user wants to stay on the
Order by default. If not, he/she can always navigate by clicking on the
item collections link to the newly created item.
Implementing that desired default behavior by Isis could be easily done
with an annotation that can be associated with an action, such as
@NotNavigate (sure there are better names :-).
By default, the Isis framework viewers open the action's returned entity
(such as when invoking Orders.createOrder(...) ), but that behavior could
be overridden annotating with @NotNavigate the ( Order.createItem(...) )
action:
public class Order {
...
@NotNavigate
public OrderItem createItem(...) {
...
}
}
Currently, we are forced to choose to return void or return an object, as
that mandates the Isis viewer behavior. With that annotation, the value
returned does not always imposes the navigation behavior.
Perhaps there are better solutions or some pitfalls on this proposal.
HTH,
Oscar
El 02/12/2013, a las 22:57, Jeroen van der Wal jer...@stromboli.it
escribió:
Thanks for reminding Dan, screenshot now as link [1]
[1]
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1930710/Attachments/Screen%20Shot%202013-12-02%20at%2010.03.35%20PM.png
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Dan Haywood
d...@haywood-associates.co.ukwrote:
Hi Jeroen,
Screenshots get stripped from the mailing list, so you'll need to post
it
somewhere online. How about updating the screenshots on Estatio's
README?
By the way, I have a further commit... discovered that default values
for
parameters are not honoured second time around (ie bring up an action
prompt, then cancel, then bring it up again).
Cheers
Dan
On 2 December 2013 21:17, Jeroen van der Wal jer...@stromboli.it
wrote:
The modal dialog really improves the usability, thanks Dan. I've
attached
attached a screenshot which tells more then thousand words.
I just recently learned that you can use java.lang.Object as the return
type of an action and return whatever domain object or collection you
programmatically decide. So your action basically is the controller.
Nice!
Sounds familiar to what Oscar is doing.
Cheers,
Jeroen
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.com wrote:
Good done.
We also use modal dialogs on our custom viewer to avoid context
switching. The same dialog redirects to a Domain Object if that's the
result of the action invocation, or currently shows a Collection in a
grid
on the same dialog if that's the result of the action. The user can
then
navigate to any of the objects in the collection.
El 02/12/2013, a las 17:54, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk
escribió:
Hi folks,
just an fyi that I've committed and pushed ISIS-486 [1], to render
the
Wicket viewer's action
Re: ISIS-486: modal dialogs for action prompts
Hi, Dan.
I like a lot the idea of explicitly having an annotation for Aggregate Roots
(and, commercially speaking, it can be a big call to all those interested on
DDD...). I'm sure we will find more use cases for that annotation in the near
future, as it will force us to consider the distinct semantics of ARs vs
child Entities in different places.
Also, I like also a lot the idea to have idioms that can be expressed through
Isis templates but a bit unsure about imposing them (it's clearly not the
case on what you're proposing).
I assume that the target to evaluate would always be the entity you are
invoking the action from.
If it's not an AR, in theory it should be showed without being able to modify
it (as a Value Object) in order to force the invariants imposed by the AR.
Despite that, in our case, we could have contributed actions (from the AR, or
actions from the Entity delegated to the AR) that would allow for properly
modifying it within the context of its AR. And, if no invariants must be
preserved on some fields, they simply could be safely edited ... So, basically,
if properly implemented through Isis (with disabled, hidden and actions) a
child entity can safely be edited preserving all invariants.
As a derivation, on action invoked on Domain Services, Isis viewers will always
navigate to the returned entity, despite it's an AR or not (no reason on DDD to
return it from a Service, but no need neither to explicitly forbid it for those
following bad practices).
HTH,
Oscar
El 03/12/2013, a las 12:21, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk
escribió:
That's an interesting idea, Oscar.
The issue arises from the fact that there are potentially two different
callers of the Order#createItem method:
a) the Isis framework itself - in which case, as we all know, the signature
of the methdo is used to determine presentation/navigation
b) other domain objects, ie programmatic interaction. In some cases the
caller might want the aggregate root (Order), at other times the aggregated
(OrderItem).
Actually, being strict about (b), under DDD the aggregate root should never
return one of its constituent parts. That would argue that even for
programmatic interactions (b) the method should only return Order, not
OrderItem.
If we relax that rule, though, then one solution is to split out the method
according to its two different callers, and have one method delegate to the
other; eg:
public class Order {
public Order createItem( ... ) {
doCreateItem(...);
return this;
}
@Programmatic
pubilc OrderItem doCreateItem( ) {
OrderItem item = ...
...
return item;
}
}
I suspect the above pattern/idiom is sufficient in many cases.
But if that seems like too much boilerplate, and we really did want to have
a single method (such that Isis renders the Order even though an OrderItem
is returned) then I think I'd prefer to simply annotate which of our
entities are aggregate roots, ie
@AggregateRoot
public class Order { ... }
Then, the rule would be that if the returned object does not have the
AggregateRootFacet, then we instead navigate to the target aggregate root.
Thoughts?
Dan
On 3 December 2013 10:01, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.comwrote:
Really well-looking, Jeroen.
Regarding navigability through actions, I think that perhaps there are 2
distinct use cases that should be treated differently as such:
1. The user creates an Aggregate Root (such as an Order). As such,
normally want to navigate to the newly created one.
2. The user creates an Entity that is part of an Aggregate (such as an
Order Line / Item). In this case, normally the user wants to stay on the
Order by default. If not, he/she can always navigate by clicking on the
item collections link to the newly created item.
Implementing that desired default behavior by Isis could be easily done
with an annotation that can be associated with an action, such as
@NotNavigate (sure there are better names :-).
By default, the Isis framework viewers open the action's returned entity
(such as when invoking Orders.createOrder(...) ), but that behavior could
be overridden annotating with @NotNavigate the ( Order.createItem(...) )
action:
public class Order {
...
@NotNavigate
public OrderItem createItem(...) {
...
}
}
Currently, we are forced to choose to return void or return an object, as
that mandates the Isis viewer behavior. With that annotation, the value
returned does not always imposes the navigation behavior.
Perhaps there are better solutions or some pitfalls on this proposal.
HTH,
Oscar
El 02/12/2013, a las 22:57, Jeroen van der Wal jer...@stromboli.it
escribió:
Thanks for reminding Dan, screenshot now as link [1]
[1]
Re: ISIS-486: modal dialogs for action prompts
I also prefer an annotation and not put boilerplate code in the domain for
ui purposes. An @AggregateRoot annotation doesn't meet all our requirements
though: we have cases where child objects are an aggregate in it's own:
Lease - @AggregateRoot
+ LeaseItem - aggregate for terms
+ LeaseTerm
Another approach in this case would be to use a viewer directive to ignore
the result of an action and to return to the calling page. Something like:
public class LeaseItem {
...
@Void
public LeaseTerm newTerm(...) {...}
...
}
This solution would also solve situations where you want to navigate away
from an aggregate root.
Cheers,
Jeroen
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.com wrote:
Hi, Dan.
I like a lot the idea of explicitly having an annotation for Aggregate
Roots (and, commercially speaking, it can be a big call to all those
interested on DDD...). I'm sure we will find more use cases for that
annotation in the near future, as it will force us to consider the distinct
semantics of ARs vs child Entities in different places.
Also, I like also a lot the idea to have idioms that can be expressed
through Isis templates but a bit unsure about imposing them (it's
clearly not the case on what you're proposing).
I assume that the target to evaluate would always be the entity you are
invoking the action from.
If it's not an AR, in theory it should be showed without being able to
modify it (as a Value Object) in order to force the invariants imposed by
the AR.
Despite that, in our case, we could have contributed actions (from the AR,
or actions from the Entity delegated to the AR) that would allow for
properly modifying it within the context of its AR. And, if no invariants
must be preserved on some fields, they simply could be safely edited ...
So, basically, if properly implemented through Isis (with disabled, hidden
and actions) a child entity can safely be edited preserving all
invariants.
As a derivation, on action invoked on Domain Services, Isis viewers will
always navigate to the returned entity, despite it's an AR or not (no
reason on DDD to return it from a Service, but no need neither to
explicitly forbid it for those following bad practices).
HTH,
Oscar
El 03/12/2013, a las 12:21, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk
escribió:
That's an interesting idea, Oscar.
The issue arises from the fact that there are potentially two different
callers of the Order#createItem method:
a) the Isis framework itself - in which case, as we all know, the
signature
of the methdo is used to determine presentation/navigation
b) other domain objects, ie programmatic interaction. In some cases the
caller might want the aggregate root (Order), at other times the
aggregated
(OrderItem).
Actually, being strict about (b), under DDD the aggregate root should
never
return one of its constituent parts. That would argue that even for
programmatic interactions (b) the method should only return Order, not
OrderItem.
If we relax that rule, though, then one solution is to split out the
method
according to its two different callers, and have one method delegate to
the
other; eg:
public class Order {
public Order createItem( ... ) {
doCreateItem(...);
return this;
}
@Programmatic
pubilc OrderItem doCreateItem( ) {
OrderItem item = ...
...
return item;
}
}
I suspect the above pattern/idiom is sufficient in many cases.
But if that seems like too much boilerplate, and we really did want to
have
a single method (such that Isis renders the Order even though an
OrderItem
is returned) then I think I'd prefer to simply annotate which of our
entities are aggregate roots, ie
@AggregateRoot
public class Order { ... }
Then, the rule would be that if the returned object does not have the
AggregateRootFacet, then we instead navigate to the target aggregate
root.
Thoughts?
Dan
On 3 December 2013 10:01, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.comwrote:
Really well-looking, Jeroen.
Regarding navigability through actions, I think that perhaps there are 2
distinct use cases that should be treated differently as such:
1. The user creates an Aggregate Root (such as an Order). As such,
normally want to navigate to the newly created one.
2. The user creates an Entity that is part of an Aggregate (such as an
Order Line / Item). In this case, normally the user wants to stay on the
Order by default. If not, he/she can always navigate by clicking on the
item collections link to the newly created item.
Implementing that desired default behavior by Isis could be easily done
with an annotation that can be associated with an action, such as
@NotNavigate (sure there are better names :-).
By default, the Isis framework viewers open the action's returned entity
Re: ISIS-486: modal dialogs for action prompts
This is a mixed approach and I would prefer it also.
The viewer annotation @Void (if it's for the viewer, perhaps @NotNavigate or
something more specific or explicit would be better than the generic term
void ) would have preference on the viewer's behavior.
In absence, the logic could be to search for @AggregateRoot on the action's
entity.
El 03/12/2013, a las 13:49, Jeroen van der Wal jer...@stromboli.it escribió:
I also prefer an annotation and not put boilerplate code in the domain for
ui purposes. An @AggregateRoot annotation doesn't meet all our requirements
though: we have cases where child objects are an aggregate in it's own:
Lease - @AggregateRoot
+ LeaseItem - aggregate for terms
+ LeaseTerm
Another approach in this case would be to use a viewer directive to ignore
the result of an action and to return to the calling page. Something like:
public class LeaseItem {
...
@Void
public LeaseTerm newTerm(...) {...}
...
}
This solution would also solve situations where you want to navigate away
from an aggregate root.
Cheers,
Jeroen
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.com wrote:
Hi, Dan.
I like a lot the idea of explicitly having an annotation for Aggregate
Roots (and, commercially speaking, it can be a big call to all those
interested on DDD...). I'm sure we will find more use cases for that
annotation in the near future, as it will force us to consider the distinct
semantics of ARs vs child Entities in different places.
Also, I like also a lot the idea to have idioms that can be expressed
through Isis templates but a bit unsure about imposing them (it's
clearly not the case on what you're proposing).
I assume that the target to evaluate would always be the entity you are
invoking the action from.
If it's not an AR, in theory it should be showed without being able to
modify it (as a Value Object) in order to force the invariants imposed by
the AR.
Despite that, in our case, we could have contributed actions (from the AR,
or actions from the Entity delegated to the AR) that would allow for
properly modifying it within the context of its AR. And, if no invariants
must be preserved on some fields, they simply could be safely edited ...
So, basically, if properly implemented through Isis (with disabled, hidden
and actions) a child entity can safely be edited preserving all
invariants.
As a derivation, on action invoked on Domain Services, Isis viewers will
always navigate to the returned entity, despite it's an AR or not (no
reason on DDD to return it from a Service, but no need neither to
explicitly forbid it for those following bad practices).
HTH,
Oscar
El 03/12/2013, a las 12:21, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk
escribió:
That's an interesting idea, Oscar.
The issue arises from the fact that there are potentially two different
callers of the Order#createItem method:
a) the Isis framework itself - in which case, as we all know, the
signature
of the methdo is used to determine presentation/navigation
b) other domain objects, ie programmatic interaction. In some cases the
caller might want the aggregate root (Order), at other times the
aggregated
(OrderItem).
Actually, being strict about (b), under DDD the aggregate root should
never
return one of its constituent parts. That would argue that even for
programmatic interactions (b) the method should only return Order, not
OrderItem.
If we relax that rule, though, then one solution is to split out the
method
according to its two different callers, and have one method delegate to
the
other; eg:
public class Order {
public Order createItem( ... ) {
doCreateItem(...);
return this;
}
@Programmatic
pubilc OrderItem doCreateItem( ) {
OrderItem item = ...
...
return item;
}
}
I suspect the above pattern/idiom is sufficient in many cases.
But if that seems like too much boilerplate, and we really did want to
have
a single method (such that Isis renders the Order even though an
OrderItem
is returned) then I think I'd prefer to simply annotate which of our
entities are aggregate roots, ie
@AggregateRoot
public class Order { ... }
Then, the rule would be that if the returned object does not have the
AggregateRootFacet, then we instead navigate to the target aggregate
root.
Thoughts?
Dan
On 3 December 2013 10:01, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.comwrote:
Really well-looking, Jeroen.
Regarding navigability through actions, I think that perhaps there are 2
distinct use cases that should be treated differently as such:
1. The user creates an Aggregate Root (such as an Order). As such,
normally want to navigate to the newly created one.
2. The user creates an Entity that is part of an Aggregate (such as an
Order Line / Item). In this case, normally the user wants to
Re: ISIS-486: modal dialogs for action prompts
@NotNagivate is indeed a better term. But if we use @AggregateRoot as
default behavior we also need a directive to excplicity move away from the
aggregate:
@AggregateRoot
public class Invoice {
...
public Invoice creditThisInvoice() {
// The @AR annotation prevents the viewer going to this new invoice
...
return newlyCreatedInvoice;
}
}
Perhapse introduce @Navigate as well?
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:02 PM, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.com wrote:
This is a mixed approach and I would prefer it also.
The viewer annotation @Void (if it's for the viewer, perhaps @NotNavigate
or something more specific or explicit would be better than the generic
term void ) would have preference on the viewer's behavior.
In absence, the logic could be to search for @AggregateRoot on the
action's entity.
El 03/12/2013, a las 13:49, Jeroen van der Wal jer...@stromboli.it
escribió:
I also prefer an annotation and not put boilerplate code in the domain
for
ui purposes. An @AggregateRoot annotation doesn't meet all our
requirements
though: we have cases where child objects are an aggregate in it's own:
Lease - @AggregateRoot
+ LeaseItem - aggregate for terms
+ LeaseTerm
Another approach in this case would be to use a viewer directive to
ignore
the result of an action and to return to the calling page. Something
like:
public class LeaseItem {
...
@Void
public LeaseTerm newTerm(...) {...}
...
}
This solution would also solve situations where you want to navigate away
from an aggregate root.
Cheers,
Jeroen
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.com wrote:
Hi, Dan.
I like a lot the idea of explicitly having an annotation for Aggregate
Roots (and, commercially speaking, it can be a big call to all those
interested on DDD...). I'm sure we will find more use cases for that
annotation in the near future, as it will force us to consider the
distinct
semantics of ARs vs child Entities in different places.
Also, I like also a lot the idea to have idioms that can be expressed
through Isis templates but a bit unsure about imposing them (it's
clearly not the case on what you're proposing).
I assume that the target to evaluate would always be the entity you
are
invoking the action from.
If it's not an AR, in theory it should be showed without being able to
modify it (as a Value Object) in order to force the invariants imposed
by
the AR.
Despite that, in our case, we could have contributed actions (from the
AR,
or actions from the Entity delegated to the AR) that would allow for
properly modifying it within the context of its AR. And, if no
invariants
must be preserved on some fields, they simply could be safely edited ...
So, basically, if properly implemented through Isis (with disabled,
hidden
and actions) a child entity can safely be edited preserving all
invariants.
As a derivation, on action invoked on Domain Services, Isis viewers will
always navigate to the returned entity, despite it's an AR or not (no
reason on DDD to return it from a Service, but no need neither to
explicitly forbid it for those following bad practices).
HTH,
Oscar
El 03/12/2013, a las 12:21, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk
escribió:
That's an interesting idea, Oscar.
The issue arises from the fact that there are potentially two different
callers of the Order#createItem method:
a) the Isis framework itself - in which case, as we all know, the
signature
of the methdo is used to determine presentation/navigation
b) other domain objects, ie programmatic interaction. In some cases
the
caller might want the aggregate root (Order), at other times the
aggregated
(OrderItem).
Actually, being strict about (b), under DDD the aggregate root should
never
return one of its constituent parts. That would argue that even for
programmatic interactions (b) the method should only return Order, not
OrderItem.
If we relax that rule, though, then one solution is to split out the
method
according to its two different callers, and have one method delegate to
the
other; eg:
public class Order {
public Order createItem( ... ) {
doCreateItem(...);
return this;
}
@Programmatic
pubilc OrderItem doCreateItem( ) {
OrderItem item = ...
...
return item;
}
}
I suspect the above pattern/idiom is sufficient in many cases.
But if that seems like too much boilerplate, and we really did want to
have
a single method (such that Isis renders the Order even though an
OrderItem
is returned) then I think I'd prefer to simply annotate which of our
entities are aggregate roots, ie
@AggregateRoot
public class Order { ... }
Then, the rule would be that if the returned object does not have the
Re: ISIS-486: modal dialogs for action prompts
Simple and clear. I like it. :-))
But not sure if on the provided example the viewer would prevent to navigate to
the newly created one.
I would expect the logic to be the next one:
1. Verify if the action is annotated with @NotNavigate or @Navigate. If so,
execute that behavior (as it's explicitly mandated).
2. Verify if the action's returned entity is an @AggregateRoot. If so, navigate
to it.
3. Verify if the Entity owning the invoked action is an @AggregateRoot. If so,
navigate to it.
4. Simply close the dialog.
The Isis meta-model validation should forbid to use @Navigate on actions
returning void.
El 03/12/2013, a las 14:52, Jeroen van der Wal jer...@stromboli.it escribió:
@NotNagivate is indeed a better term. But if we use @AggregateRoot as
default behavior we also need a directive to excplicity move away from the
aggregate:
@AggregateRoot
public class Invoice {
...
public Invoice creditThisInvoice() {
// The @AR annotation prevents the viewer going to this new invoice
...
return newlyCreatedInvoice;
}
}
Perhapse introduce @Navigate as well?
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:02 PM, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.com wrote:
This is a mixed approach and I would prefer it also.
The viewer annotation @Void (if it's for the viewer, perhaps @NotNavigate
or something more specific or explicit would be better than the generic
term void ) would have preference on the viewer's behavior.
In absence, the logic could be to search for @AggregateRoot on the
action's entity.
El 03/12/2013, a las 13:49, Jeroen van der Wal jer...@stromboli.it
escribió:
I also prefer an annotation and not put boilerplate code in the domain
for
ui purposes. An @AggregateRoot annotation doesn't meet all our
requirements
though: we have cases where child objects are an aggregate in it's own:
Lease - @AggregateRoot
+ LeaseItem - aggregate for terms
+ LeaseTerm
Another approach in this case would be to use a viewer directive to
ignore
the result of an action and to return to the calling page. Something
like:
public class LeaseItem {
...
@Void
public LeaseTerm newTerm(...) {...}
...
}
This solution would also solve situations where you want to navigate away
from an aggregate root.
Cheers,
Jeroen
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou
o@gesconsultor.com wrote:
Hi, Dan.
I like a lot the idea of explicitly having an annotation for Aggregate
Roots (and, commercially speaking, it can be a big call to all those
interested on DDD...). I'm sure we will find more use cases for that
annotation in the near future, as it will force us to consider the
distinct
semantics of ARs vs child Entities in different places.
Also, I like also a lot the idea to have idioms that can be expressed
through Isis templates but a bit unsure about imposing them (it's
clearly not the case on what you're proposing).
I assume that the target to evaluate would always be the entity you
are
invoking the action from.
If it's not an AR, in theory it should be showed without being able to
modify it (as a Value Object) in order to force the invariants imposed
by
the AR.
Despite that, in our case, we could have contributed actions (from the
AR,
or actions from the Entity delegated to the AR) that would allow for
properly modifying it within the context of its AR. And, if no
invariants
must be preserved on some fields, they simply could be safely edited ...
So, basically, if properly implemented through Isis (with disabled,
hidden
and actions) a child entity can safely be edited preserving all
invariants.
As a derivation, on action invoked on Domain Services, Isis viewers will
always navigate to the returned entity, despite it's an AR or not (no
reason on DDD to return it from a Service, but no need neither to
explicitly forbid it for those following bad practices).
HTH,
Oscar
El 03/12/2013, a las 12:21, Dan Haywood d...@haywood-associates.co.uk
escribió:
That's an interesting idea, Oscar.
The issue arises from the fact that there are potentially two different
callers of the Order#createItem method:
a) the Isis framework itself - in which case, as we all know, the
signature
of the methdo is used to determine presentation/navigation
b) other domain objects, ie programmatic interaction. In some cases
the
caller might want the aggregate root (Order), at other times the
aggregated
(OrderItem).
Actually, being strict about (b), under DDD the aggregate root should
never
return one of its constituent parts. That would argue that even for
programmatic interactions (b) the method should only return Order, not
OrderItem.
If we relax that rule, though, then one solution is to split out the
method
according to its two different callers, and have one method delegate to
the
other; eg:
public class Order {
public Order createItem( ... )
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-486) Show action dialogs in a modal dialog rather than new page (less context switching for user)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-486?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13838268#comment-13838268 ] Jeroen van der Wal commented on ISIS-486: - I did a quick-n-dirty fix on the css to allow the width of a dropdown field (select2) in a modal window to be 200px, the original statement in the CSS was't applied. Could also be an error in the HTML DOM but I have a bit cold feet to dive into that. I commented out the original code for the braver among us. Show action dialogs in a modal dialog rather than new page (less context switching for user) Key: ISIS-486 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-486 Project: Isis Issue Type: Improvement Components: Viewer: Wicket Affects Versions: viewer-wicket-1.2.0 Reporter: Dan Haywood Assignee: Dan Haywood Fix For: viewer-wicket-1.4.0 depends on ISIS-537 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1#6144)
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-621) Wicket viewer's parsing of numbers silently ignores invalidly formatted numbers
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-621?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13838416#comment-13838416 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on ISIS-621: -- Commit 48c9e60b0b3a7ae4715325e7f856e77929fe28e5 in branch refs/heads/master from [~danhaywood] [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=isis.git;h=48c9e60 ] ISIS-621: improvements to numeric panel converters Wicket viewer's parsing of numbers silently ignores invalidly formatted numbers --- Key: ISIS-621 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-621 Project: Isis Issue Type: Bug Components: Viewer: Wicket Affects Versions: viewer-wicket-1.3.1 Reporter: Dan Haywood Assignee: Dan Haywood Priority: Minor Fix For: viewer-wicket-1.4.0 Noticed with BigDecimal (but also an issue for other numeric types)... When a field is mandatory you can enter anything. There is no check if an actual value is number being entered. As an example: when a user enters 100,50 it is not being parsed as number but no feedback is returned . In fact, looking at the code, the Wicket framework provides a bunch of IConverter implementations, which we should use. (Strangely, there is none for BigInteger, but can subclass AbstractIntegerConverter). -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1#6144)
