> as pointed out by jeffrey i could also pass in the services as needed > but i think this approach will bloat the methods of my domain objects. > have you used this approach on a big codebase? doesn't it have some > negative effects on the expressiveness of the Domain Objects?
When some domain logic need to use some service, I think there are 3 ways to get that service : * passed as parameter * injected into domain object * pulled the service out from some registry in a method To my humble opinion, "passed as parameter" is the most clean way to make domain object reusable. For example, if you have an Order domain object, needs a TaxCaculator service in some method. You could pass either a USATaxCaculator or CanadaTaxCaculator in. The other ways don't provide this flexibility. Only if you are sure that a service will only have one implementation in your system for domain object use, you might choose the 2nd or the 3rd way. In this case, I am favoring the 3rd way. P.S. We have used the combination of 1st and 3rd way in a medium-scale e-commerce software. Cheers, Jeffrey Ai -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-T5--injecting-services-into-Domain-Objects-tp14250305p14279147.html Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
