Timeline for Why is the product of the order item a reference to the ID of the product and not a value object?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 10, 2022 at 10:18 | vote | accept | Álvaro García | ||
| Oct 1, 2022 at 2:11 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2022 at 20:27 | comment | added | candied_orange | @RobertHarvey Yes. It's trying to map one idea onto the other. And the OP is questioning why doesn't immutability imply value object. The problem is that value object implies immutability. The implication arrow wont help you if you point it in the wrong direction. = | |
| Sep 30, 2022 at 20:15 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | The OP has presented a database diagram. It's thinly-disguised as DDD aggregates, but it's a diagram of an actual database. If it walks like a duck... | |
| Sep 30, 2022 at 20:08 | comment | added | candied_orange | @RobertHarvey I'm intentionally avoiding declaring that the problem must be solved in the one true way specifically because I know how many flavors that propaganda comes in. Using a database or not is simply an implementation detail. All we owe them is fulfilled requirements. | |
| Sep 30, 2022 at 19:58 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | In other words, this is a database design problem, not a "value-type object" problem. | |
| Sep 30, 2022 at 19:56 | comment | added | Robert Harvey |
I think the problem here is that the OP is conflating the immutable semantics of an OrderItem (semantics which, among other things, improve reasoning when using multiple threads) with the fact that they can achieve the same result by simply storing the description of the item with the OrderItem record, just as you have done with OrderItem.Price.
|
|
| Sep 30, 2022 at 19:53 | history | edited | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2022 at 19:47 | history | answered | candied_orange | CC BY-SA 4.0 |