Add a comment

 

Re: Layers, hexagons, features and components

Hi Thomas, yes you are right, I consider ports belonging to the hexagon too, maybe I didn't express myself well, sorry. Is just that I split the hexagon in core and ports. Ports are the api/spi of the hexagon. They belong to the hexagon, they are for communication with the outside world. As some comments in this post pointed out, in my approach I have lot of subprojects (I use Java and Maven), in order to separate physically every adapter, port, etc. and define the concrete dependencies (not just a dependendy from the outside towards the hexagon). If I don't do it this way the adapters, for example, could reference to each other, or they could reference more parts of the hexagon, not just the ports, that is not desirable to reach, etc. The drawback of this approach is the complexity of the whole project, with lot of subprojects and dependencies. But I think that if I don't do it this way, it's more a "two layered architecture with DIP"(1) than a ports&adapters. Ports & Adapters would need a more complex project structure, in order to separate physically the distinct ports and adapters and configure the dependencies between them. (1) workaround name for "onion with 2 layers" :-)

Re: Layers, hexagons, features and components


Title
Body
HTML : b, strong, i, em, blockquote, br, p, pre, a href="", ul, ol, li, sub, sup
Name
E-mail address
Website
Remember me Yes  No 

E-mail addresses are not publicly displayed, so please only leave your e-mail address if you would like to be notified when new comments are added to this blog entry (you can opt-out later).