- Where Developers Learn, Share, & Build Careers
All materials on DDD specify this as not strict number, but recently came in a scenario that makes a compelling case to think.
Otherwise. Imagine 2 total roots and templates where However, in its special scenario, even if ParamValue maintains a direct reference to TemplateParam, TemplateParam is not risk of being modified by an entity in the document total. The value associated with the parameter for a given document will be modified, but the value per parameter will not be. To make sure that this is the case, you can make template PRM an irreversible value: (in C #) Technically it can be said that DDD's total road obstacle can be violated, but I do not believe that unless you make the "external" unit irrevocable and the object graph is the original form By not joining it, then it is in a spirit. template - & gt; (1: n) template, document - & gt; (1: N) Paramavlue and finally there is a reference to 2 roots
document - & gt; (N: 1) Template .
Gross root barrier ParamValue should not be issued in the context of
TemplateParam , only it can be referred to through a transient reference
template Received via gross route. Now if I want to apply a rule such as "Each paragraph of the document should mention a valid template related to the template referred to by the document owned by it". Ideally at the DB level, I have to give Paramvalue to template value in the FK, how to do it in DDD pattern ?? The total reasons for a reason are that they act as a single entry point for a group of related institutions to implement their own misgivings. They ensure that an external object can mess with these institutions and potentially violate their inventions.
public square TemplateParam {private redone name string; Public TemplateParam (string name) {this.name = name; } Public string name {get {return name; Thus you can encapsulate Tempe Param in Param with a risk that the total of the blueprint will break due to "externality of portfolios".
Comments
Post a Comment