3 ms·
It's different than the command pattern, and I didn't make up the idea or the name. The whole idea of the Interactor came straight from http://www.amazon.com/Ob
by jameskilton 14y ago
It's different than the command pattern, and I didn't make up the idea or the name. The whole idea of the Interactor came straight from http://www.amazon.com/Object-Oriented-Software-Engineering-Approach/dp/0201544350 http://www.amazon.com/Object-Oriented-Software-Engineering-A... which Uncle Bob bases a lot of his talk on.
- thom 14y agoYeah, I've met people calling them 'Tasks' too. If it _was_ a command object - if you were auditing logins, for example, and wanted to store the login command in your history - I'd see the need for its existence and its instantiation. As it is, it's just the sort of thing OO programmers seem to create because they find nouns comforting.
- thom 14y agoAnd lordy, so many nouns. Looking at the whole pattern, with DTOs in and out of Interactors, Presenters to format the DTO for the view... it never ceases to amaze me the amount of work people will do to supposedly save themselves some work. The amount of architecture people will put in place to 'put off decisions about architecture'.
- thom 14y agoThanks for the links, btw, both here and in the post. Watching the video now. It's interesting because when I first started working in functional languages like Clojure I struggled very much with how exactly one went about modelling an app, as opposed to the OO way. When I realised that the place to start was the service layer (and indeed individual use cases), things became much clearer.