[jira] [Resolved] (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:all-tabpanel ] Dan Haywood resolved ISIS-621. -- Resolution: Fixed > 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)
[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-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=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)
[jira] [Created] (ISIS-621) Wicket viewer's parsing of numbers silently ignores invalidly formatted numbers
Dan Haywood created ISIS-621: Summary: 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)
[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-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=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-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-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13838244#comment-13838244 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on ISIS-486: -- Commit 57784e537fc6bfceabbcfabeaf962a346ec5b1ec in branch refs/heads/master from [~jcvanderwal] [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=isis.git;h=57784e5 ] ISIS-486: fix for the drop down width in the modal window > 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)
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 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
>> 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
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.
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
> 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
> >> 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
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 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
>> 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
>>> wrote:
>>>
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:
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
> 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
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 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 b
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
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
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>> escribió:
>>
>>> Thanks for reminding Dan, screenshot now as link [1]
>>>
>>> [1]
>>
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
wrote:
>
> 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
> 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
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> 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, Da
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 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
> wrote:
>
>> 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 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
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
>>>
>>
[jira] [Commented] (ISIS-620) When editing an entity twice a concurrency exception is thrown
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-620?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13837487#comment-13837487 ] Jeroen van der Wal commented on ISIS-620: - Fixed, no misunderstanding here. There is still a discussion on whether the back button should be disabled or not and how to solve the user interaction. Perhaps worth a separate ticket? > When editing an entity twice a concurrency exception is thrown > -- > > Key: ISIS-620 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-620 > Project: Isis > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Viewer: Wicket >Affects Versions: viewer-wicket-1.3.1 >Reporter: Jeroen van der Wal >Assignee: Dan Haywood > Fix For: viewer-wicket-1.4.0 > > > When editing an entity twice a concurrency exception is thrown when using the > backspace (browser back) anywhere in the application. > To reproduce: > * load fixtures > * open arbitrary todo > * click edit, change description, click save > * again, click edit, change description, click save > The result: > sven attempted to update TODO:L_23, however this object has since been > modified by sven at Mon Dec 02 18:13:13 CET 2013 [3 vs 2] -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1#6144)
