I like the idea of @DomainEntity because it seems more descriptive, but I guess that doesn’t fit well for ViewModels, hence the need for the @ViewModel. I also like prefixing the other annotations with 'Domain'.
Is this the set that would be considered given option 'A' and the related proposal? @DomainService @DomainEntity and @DomainEntityLayout @DomainProperty and @DomainPropertyLayout @DomainCollection and @DomainCollectionLayout @DomainAction and @DomainActionLayout @DomainParameter and @DomainParameterLayout @ViewModel and @ViewModelLayout Jeremy D. Branham Tel: **DOTNET -----Original Message----- From: Dan Haywood [mailto:d...@haywood-associates.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:05 AM To: users Subject: Simplifying annotation names Hi folks, Over on the dev@isis.a.o list we've been debating a couple of related proposals on introducing some new annotations to make the framework overall easier to learn and make features more discoverable. The main idea (as proposed in ISIS-970 [1]) is to replace the numerous annotations with just two one for each feature, one to capture domain semantics, and one for UI hints. And, of these, the latter is optional because the xxx.layout.json file can always be used instead. Thus, for object members we are proposing: @Property and @PropertyLayout @Collection and @CollectionLayout @Action and @ActionLayout @Parameter and @ParameterLayout. For services we have: @DomainService. For objects we have two alternatives, and opinion is currently split. option (A): @DomainEntity and @DomainEntityLayout with @ViewModel and @ViewModelLayout or option (B) @DomainObject and @DomainObjectLayout With option (A), the two @XxxLayout annotations are basically identical, but are provided for consistency. Remember that in most cases they won't be used, with xxx.layout.json being used instead. With option (B), the concept of view models is relegated to an attribute of @DomainObject, that is: @DomainObject(type = ENTITY | VIEW_MODEL) This is a slight simplification but is at the heart of the debate. So far, we've had 3 votes for option A and 4 votes for option B, see [2] So.... ... are there any new opinions from anyone on option A vs option B? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A related proposal is to also rename the annotations for @Property/@Collection/@Action etc, to add "Domain" as a prefix. This fits nicely with option (B), to give a full set of: @DomainService @DomainObject and @DomainObjectLayout @DomainProperty and @DomainPropertyLayout @DomainCollection and @DomainCollectionLayout @DomainAction and @DomainActionLayout @DomainParameter and @DomainParameterLayout For option (A), it probably doesn't make as much sense (unless we were to have @ViewModelXxx equivalents for @Property/@Collection etc... which sounds rather cumbersome to me). Any thoughts on this related proposal? Thanks Dan [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-970 [2] http://isis.markmail.org/thread/272nnmh7kjvjwowl ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
