[07:51:51 EDT(-0400)] * EricDalquist (n=EricDalq@76.201.150.153) has joined ##uportal
[09:11:54 EDT(-0400)] * EricDalquist (n=EricDalq@76.201.150.153) has joined ##uportal
[09:35:47 EDT(-0400)] * EricDalquist (n=EricDalq@76.201.150.153) has joined ##uportal
[09:53:32 EDT(-0400)] * esm (n=esm@esm.qis.net) has joined ##uportal
[10:15:07 EDT(-0400)] * EricDalquist (n=dalquist@bohemia.doit.wisc.edu) has joined ##uportal
[11:04:30 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> uhg
[11:08:05 EDT(-0400)] <esm> ruh-roh shaggy
[11:08:21 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> just frustraited while cleaning up the transfer/domain objects
[11:08:31 EDT(-0400)] * esm nods
[11:08:54 EDT(-0400)] <esm> today is JHU's commencement so i have the day off 
[11:08:56 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> Some of the interfaces ... like ICustomWindowState are used in both Transfer and Domain objects and have just one impl
[11:09:10 EDT(-0400)] <esm> ok
[11:09:14 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I'm wondering if I should just convert those simple objects to simple pojos
[11:09:32 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> on the other hand there are interfaces like IPortletInfo and IPreferences
[11:09:49 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> which I feel like need to be cloned so there is a Transfer version of each
[11:10:10 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> since they transfer versions have slightly different requirements than the domain objects
[11:10:17 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> namely layering
[11:10:23 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> and serializability requirements
[11:10:47 EDT(-0400)] <esm> can you have another object be responsible for managing the layering and serializablity
[11:10:58 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> ?
[11:11:06 EDT(-0400)] <esm> or do they have to be inherent functionalitys/responsiblities of the tranfer object itself
[11:11:10 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> well
[11:11:17 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> the transfer objects need to be serializable
[11:11:28 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> most caching frameworks we want to work with at that level require that
[11:11:36 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> the domain objects have to deal with layering
[11:11:49 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> and some of these shared interfaces are stuck in the middle
[11:12:06 EDT(-0400)] * esm checks out the branch
[11:12:54 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> so the transfer objects are supposed to be simple objects ... interface representations of pojos
[11:13:03 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> domain objects end up having some logic
[11:13:11 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> dealing with layered views of data
[11:13:21 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> although I'm not sure that is appropriate either
[11:13:39 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> I've struggled with this part of the design a few times
[11:13:47 EDT(-0400)] <EricDalquist> and have never come out feeling completely comfortable with the design
[11:14:08 EDT(-0400)] <esm> you could have a new object which is responsible for managing the layering; put the layering logic in it
[11:14:20 EDT(-0400)] <esm> i don't know what that would look like code-wise though
General
Content
Integrations