Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

16
  • Well, I've thought of placing my ACL inside entities using factory methods, mainly for cases of needing to pass data from one bounded's entity context to another (because I want to get away from MappERs), so using them for mapping from infra -> domain wouldn't be the worst thing in the world (right?). It just seems like there should be a more elegant option, because I'd still need to add a type to the factory method's args that would be coming from the infra layer, and that seems wrong. Commented Jul 23 at 13:29
  • @BernardoBeniniFantin Sorry, what does ACL stand for in this context? Commented Jul 23 at 15:06
  • It's the Anti-Corruption Layer. Commented Jul 23 at 15:59
  • @BernardoBeniniFantin I don't think that belongs inside the class that defines an object i.e. where I am proposing the factory method can be used here. I would keep things related to translations separate from either side of what is being translated. A factory method (or builder-chain) could support that, but I would keep it loosely coupled, for various reasons. Commented Jul 23 at 16:48
  • I might've missed your point then, because I understood you were saying factory methods would be useful for containing "some" logic when creating instances and constructors would remain simple. In my case, the instantiation would be from data coming from the infra layer, therefore I'd need to use a type for the factory method's arguments that would also come from the infra right inside the domain. Commented Jul 24 at 11:13