4 ms·
In what way is the term "service facade/interface" overloaded? I've never encountered confusion (or been confused) by its usage in the context of discussing so
by derriz 9y ago
In what way is the term "service facade/interface" overloaded? I've never encountered confusion (or been confused) by its usage in the context of discussing software development.
On the other hand, "port" is already completely overloaded: serial interface, TCP socket endpoint, etc. Further overloading it - particularly when there is a widely used term for the same thing - makes no sense.
Reinventing terms for existing concepts does nothing - in my mind - to advance the state of art.
- macca321 9y agoOK, an example: a LOT of .NET/Java codebases have these (IMO smelly) constructs: class FooService : IFooService{} interface IFooService {} where there is an interface with a single implementation. In this case, the "service interface" isn't a port, because it's not actually decoupled from the domain. It has the potential to be one, but only if the FooService is extracted, dereferenced from the domain, and the application composes the FooService. Saying "we need to make this into a port and adapter" gets the point across very quickly.