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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

'head.revision' vs 'revision' #11

Open
TomKaltz opened this issue Jun 3, 2015 · 5 comments
Open

'head.revision' vs 'revision' #11

TomKaltz opened this issue Jun 3, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@TomKaltz
Copy link
Contributor

TomKaltz commented Jun 3, 2015

Can you explain why not use just 'revision' for domain and command structure?
@TomKaltz TomKaltz changed the title 'head.revision' vs 'revision 'head.revision' vs 'revision' Jun 3, 2015
@adrai
Copy link
Contributor

adrai commented Jun 3, 2015

you can define it like you want to...

@TomKaltz
Copy link
Contributor Author

TomKaltz commented Jun 3, 2015

These fields are optional and do not get stored if they aren't specified. I'm curious to why there isn't a conventional default for command and event structure. Some of those optional values seem pretty important. Seems like it complicates the system more to require such configuration?

@TomKaltz
Copy link
Contributor Author

TomKaltz commented Jun 3, 2015

Just like #12. The aggregate name is pretty important but is not stored if not specified in config. Conventional defaults sound like the way to go. What do you think @adrai ?

@adrai
Copy link
Contributor

adrai commented Jun 3, 2015

revision => no, because depending on that the internal revisionGuard is triggered
aggregate.name => no, because the minimal message structure has only an aggregateId and no aggregateName and no contextName

@adrai
Copy link
Contributor

adrai commented Jun 3, 2015

PS. I reverted the pull req

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@adrai @TomKaltz