Talk:Business logic layer

I discovered Business logic after writing this stub. This topic should probably just point to that article instead?--Benjam47 07:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like these are aspects of the same concept, so merging them together makes sense. The layer context may not be mentioned specifically in the business logic page yet. -- M0llusk (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Rationale for merge: Well , I think the pages speak for itself , they say `this is also called that` vice versa. Immeëmosol (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merger is a good idea whenever an apprehension is denominated with several terms, as it is the case here. SAE1962 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the merge proposal. However, I am unqualified to merge the material from the other article. Here it is after I cleaned it up a bit:

The domain layer is a software concept. It is one of the layers in a typical multilayered architecture for information systems. The domain model is a part of the domain layer. It is a software model with classes that represents actual concepts from the reality. These concepts are called entities and value objects in the terminology of domain-driven design (DDD). There are some other DDD concepts that are not part of a domain model, e.g. services and repositories, but still part of the domain layer.

Merge (from Talk:Business logic)

I merged the existing discussions, as the merge tag was just added to Business logic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

There isn't enough differences between these two articles to keep them separate. Actually business logic layer does a better job at explaining what business logic does than this one. Diego Moya (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see little similarity between the topics. However, I would have no object to Business logic layer being merged into the section Business logic#Location of business logic, as there is already more about it there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hasn't anybody else noticed yet? The reason there is "little similarity" is because the two articles follow different definitions of "business logic" . In fact, I would even go so far as to say that the one article, "business logic" gets it wrong, confusing business logic with data access. 208.54.5.69 (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]