[deepamehta-users] Address Model in DM Webclient

[Jörg Richter]

Hi JuergeN,

we could define that association as Aggregation Definition but this would not make the Webclient automatically share Address objects between several parents.

Currently the Webclient has no notion of weather a *composite* object as edited in the detail panel represents the same thing (semantic-wise) as any object already existing in the DB. How could such a logic be implemented (in a performant way)? How could an universal GUI be designed? To me these are hard questions and the 2nd one seems not even solvable in the scope of the DM Webclient.

When I'm editing e.g. a person in the Webclient's detail panel it can't differentiate between these 2 cases:
	- I want edit a shared address and thus affect all involved persons.
	- I want assign just the person being edited a new address.
From my point of view these are 2 different (domain-specific) use cases that can not be handled at the same time by the (domain-unspecific) Webclient which have no sense of "use cases" but manipulates the data directly.

Sharing e.g. an address object between several parents and editing them with the Webclient comes at the risk of unwanted semantic side-effects. This is a long lasting basic problem discussed in https://trac.deepamehta.de/ticket/337

That's why the Contacts/Address model is as it is.

Cheers,
Jörg


On Feb 21, 2015, at 15:09, Juergen Neumann wrote:

> Dear Jörg,
> 
> I was just wondering why on type level the association between
> Address_Entry and Address is modelled as a composition definition? An
> address is very well described with country, city, code and street. So
> if all these match, it is probably the very same address (in real life).
> 
> Are there any specfic reasons, why you chose to do it this way?
> Otherwise I would suggest to change it into an aggregation definition.
> 
> Thx,
> 
> JuergeN
> 
> -- 
> users mailing list
> users at lists.deepamehta.de
> http://lists.deepamehta.de/mailman/listinfo/users-lists.deepamehta.de