Re: Aggregates with dependencies
Greg Young <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.domain-driven-design |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAC9RQtivq83Gn2eVG-7P=ZTYO1mvJ16+aCnL_R36xry=x2_Waw@mail.gmail.com> |
""Treat it as meta-data" means that your domain-model classes, commands and events do not explicitly have properties and methods that relate to this data." Yes. Unless for say a Transaction Object in the domain model you might end up with it as its a domain concern. Beyond that its not generally stored in the event. You can imagine that every event has arbitrary metadata stored with it. On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Willem van Gool <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > > > "Treat it as meta-data" means that your domain-model classes, commands and > events do not explicitly have properties and methods that relate to this > data. You typically access meta-data from a 'context' like > Thread.CurrentPrincipal and use that for authorization/logging purposes; > when sending off a command or event, the serialized stream typically also > contains some kind of header which may contain this meta-data. > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Christopher Cornacchia < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> What does that mean: "treat it like meta-data"? How are you supposed to >> treat meta-data? >> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Willem van Gool <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:43:28 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [domaindrivendesign] Aggregates with dependencies >> >> >> >> >> >> Greg, Dan, I'm with you on this. It sounds like a typical >> security/principal case where the security context is constructed by >> querying some authorization service. Other than that, once you have the >> necessary info, treat it is meta-data... >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Dan Haywood < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> >> On 15 February 2013 08:22, Greg Young <[email protected] <mailto: >> [email protected]> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I would add the user not as part of the event but as metadata describing >> the event. It is very common to include context information in metadata >> (such as security context or machine that did it etc). >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> > > -- Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.