Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify some statements in the owned entity types docs #1906

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 11, 2019

Conversation

AndriySvyryd
Copy link
Member

Fixes #1239
Fixes #1400
Fixes #1457
Fixes #1628
Fixes #1629
Fixes #1781
Fixes #1888

@ajcvickers
Copy link
Contributor

Should we explicitly call out that owned types are not a good replacement for complex types and do not closely match the semantics for DDD-style value objects?

@AndriySvyryd
Copy link
Member Author

@ajcvickers I think we need to provide a better alternative first (multi-column value converters) for the warning to be effective.

@AndriySvyryd AndriySvyryd merged commit cde1961 into master Nov 11, 2019
@AndriySvyryd AndriySvyryd deleted the Issue1239 branch November 11, 2019 19:12
@voroninp
Copy link

@ajcvickers And if you make this remark, then, please,explain, why it is not a good fit for DDD ;-)

I am also eagerly watinig for the feature to setup aggregate shape, so Includes are called automatically. That's actually the main reason why I use owned types.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment