Actions have four parts to them (responsibliities, I suppose):
- execution
- supporting methods for perform the validation etc
- target object that they act upon
- event publishing
Our programming model could provide several syntaxes to put these responsibilities in different places. It already supports two (standard actions, and mixins).To compare these currently provides two different syntaxes: standard, and mixins. This page recaps on those options and suggests several others. To compare the syntaxes, we'll use a concrete example:
...
Code Block |
---|
public class Customer { // target @Action public staticCustomer class PlaceOderEvent extends ActionDomainEvent<Customer> {} placeOrder(Product p, int quantity) { ... } // action execution public boolean hidePlaceOrder() { ... } @Action(domainEvent = PlaceOrderEvent.class) // eventsupporting publishingmethods public CustomerString placeOrder(Product p, int quantitydisablePlaceOrder() { ... } public String disable1PlaceOrder(Product p) { ... } public Collection<Product> choices0PlaceOrder() { ... } // actionpublic execution public boolean hidePlaceOrderProduct default0PlaceOrder() { ... } // supporting methods public Stringint disablePlaceOrderdefault1PlaceOrder() { ... } public String disable1PlaceOrdervalidate1PlaceOrder(Productint pquantity) { ... } public Collection<Product>String choices0PlaceOrder(validatePlaceOrder(Product p, int quantity) { ... } } |
Mixins syntax
Mixins change the target, by allowing this set of methods to be moved to a different object. In other words, the target responsibility changes.
So the real target is simply:
Code Block |
---|
public class Customer {} |
and the action itself moves onto the mixin:
Code Block |
---|
@Action public Product default0PlaceOrder() { ... } public int default1PlaceOrder() { ... } public String validate1PlaceOrder(int quantity) { ... } public String validatePlaceOrder(Product p, int quantity) { ... } } |
...
Mixins change the target, by allowing this set of methods to be moved to a different object. In other words, the target responsibility changes.
So the real target is simply:
Code Block |
---|
public class Customer {} |
and the action itself moves onto the mixin:
Code Block |
---|
@Action public class Customer_placeOrder() { private final Customer target; // target public Customer_placeOrder(Customer target) { ... } public staticCustomer class PlaceOrderEvent extends ActionDomainEvent<Customer> {} act(Product p, int quantity) { ... } // action execution public boolean hideAct() { ... } @Action(domainEvent = PlaceOrderEvent.class) // eventsupporting publishingmethods public CustomerString act(Product p, int quantitydisableAct() { ... } public String disable1Act(Product p) { ... } public Collection<Product> choices0Act() { ... } public Product default0Act() // action execution { ... } public booleanint hideActdefault1Act() { ... } // supporting methods public String disableActvalidate1Act(int quantity) { ... } public String disable1ActvalidateAct(Product p), { ... } public Collection<Product> choices0Act(int quantity) { ... } public Product default0Act() { ... } public int default1Act() { ...} public String validate1Act(int quantity) { ... } public String validateAct(Product p, int quantity) { ... } } |
Notes:
- Instead of
@Action
, the@Mixin(method="act")
could also be used, with additional annotations on theact(...)
method. I've chosen the version with the least boilerplate here. - Mixins are also used for derived properties or collections (ie query-only actions with no side-effects). These are specified using
@Property
or@Collection
- We now have two classes here: the mixin, and the domain event within.
Parameters syntax (proposed)
Per this thread on slack, we could introduce a Parameters object (in Java 14+, this might be a record) to bring together all of the parameters into a single object. This would make it easier to avoid issues with numbering etc.
This syntax changes the way in which supporting methods are associated back to the main execution method.
} |
Notes:
- Instead of
@Action
, the@Mixin(method="act")
could also be used, with additional annotations on theact(...)
method. I've chosen the version with the least boilerplate here. - Mixins are also used for derived properties or collections (ie query-only actions with no side-effects). These are specified using
@Property
or@Collection
- We now have two classes here: the mixin, and the domain event within.
Analysis
Actions have three parts (or responsibilities) to them:
- execution
- the target object that they act upon
- the set of parameters/arguments that are passed to the execution and to the supporting methods that perform validation etc.
(Actually, there's also event publishing, and an earlier version of this page also discussed that ... but we didn't see any point in changing how that worked).
The standard model and the mixin model have a quite different "feel" to them, though they only subtly change where these responsibilities reside: for the standard model, the target object is implicit (ie "this") whereas with mixins the target object is explicit (passed into the constructor). In other respects the programming models are the same.
Playing around with where these responsibilities live allow us to create a number of other programming models. The table below summarises and names these options::
target | behaviour | parameter values | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|
standard | implicit | Y | The target is implicit ("this"), and the set of parameter values (arguments) are only implicit in the signatures of the execute action and the supporting methods | |
mixins | Y | Y | The target is explicit, being the constructor of the mixin. | |
Parameters model | Y | Separate class that captures the set of parameters that are passed to the supporting methods | ||
Parameters on Act | Y | Minor variation | ||
Parameters Everywhere | Y | Another variation | ||
Mixins + Parameters | Y | Y | Y | Combines the concepts of a mixin along with a parameters model |
Targetless Mixins + Targeted Parameters | Y | Y | Y | Splits out state and behaviour |
Command handlers Commands | Y | Y | Y | Variation that splits behaviour into separate interfaces |
The rest of the page describes these options in more detail.
Parameters model syntax (proposed)
Per this thread on slack, we could introduce a Parameters object (in Java 14+, this might be a record) to bring together all of the parameters into a single object. This would make it easier to avoid issues with numbering etc.
This syntax changes the way in which supporting methods are associated back to the main execution method.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
public class Customer { // target
@Value @Accessors(fluent = true)
public class PlaceOrderParameters { // to assist supporting methods
Product product;
int quantity;
}
@Action
public Customer placeOrder(Product p, int quantity) { ... } // execution
public boolean hidePlaceOrder() { ... } // supporting methods use PlaceOrderParameters
public String disablePlaceOrder() { ... }
public String disable1PlaceOrder(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public Collection<Product> choices0PlaceOrder() { ... }
public Product default0PlaceOrder() { ... }
public int default1PlaceOrder() { ... }
public String validate1PlaceOrder(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public String validatePlaceOrder(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
} |
Notes:
- The
@Value
@Accessors(fluent=true)
allows us to use a syntax that is very similar to Java 14 records. - There is some duplication here: the list of the parameter types appears both in the
placeOrder(...)
method, as well as in thePlacerOrdersParameters
class.
The above would also be supported with mixins:
Code Block |
---|
@Action
public class Customer_placeOrder {
private final Customer target; // target
public Customer_placeOrder(Customer target) { ... }
@Value @Accessors(fluent = true)
public static class PlaceOrderParameters { // to assist supporting methods
Product product;
int quantity;
}
public Customer act(Product p, int quantity) { ... } // execution
public boolean hideAct() { ... } // supporting methods
public String disableAct() { ... }
public String disable1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public Collection<Product> choices0Act() { ... }
public Product default0Act() { ... }
public int default1Act() { ... }
public String validate1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public String validateAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
} |
Notes:
- we now have three classes here: the mixin, the domain event, and the parameters object.
Parameters on Act syntax (proposed)
This is a variant of the previous, but uses the parameters class in the action as well:
Code Block |
---|
public class Customer { // target
@Value @Accessors(fluent = true)
public class PlaceOrderParameters { // to assist supporting methods
@Parameter() @MemberOrder(1)
Product product;
@Parameter() @MemberOrder(2)
int quantity;
}
@Action
public Customer placeOrder(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } // execution
public boolean hidePlaceOrder() { ... } // supporting methods use PlaceOrderParameters
public String disablePlaceOrder() { ... }
public String disable1PlaceOrder(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public Collection<Product> choices0PlaceOrder() { ... }
public Product default0PlaceOrder() { ... }
public int default1PlaceOrder() { ... }
public String validate1PlaceOrder(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public String validatePlaceOrder(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
} |
Notes:
- this removes the duplication between the
placeOrder(...)
parameter list and the list of members inPlaceOrderParameters
class. - the
@Parameter
andsyntax would be required by the framework to identify PlaceOrderParameters as a container of parameters (as opposed to a reference object or custom value type)@MemberOrder
As a mixin, this becomes:
Code Block |
---|
@Action
public class Customer_placeOrder {
private final Customer target; // target
public Customer_placeOrder(Customer target) { ... }
@Value @Accessors(fluent = true)
public static class PlaceOrderParameters { // to assist supporting methods
@Parameter()
Product product;
@Parameter()
int quantity;
}
@Action
public Customer act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } // execution
public boolean hideAct() { ... } // supporting methods
public String disableAct() { ... }
public String disable1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public Collection<Product> choices0Act() { ... }
public Product default0Act() { ... }
public int default1Act() { ... }
public String validate1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public String validateAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
} |
Notes:
- we still have three classes here (mixin, parameters and domain event), but we have removed the duplication between the
act(...)
parameter list and the list of members ofPlaceOrderParameters
class
Parameters everywhere syntax (proposed)
The previous syntax only passes in parameters to some of the supporting methods. For consistency, we could imagine it being passed in always.
Just focusing on the mixin syntax, this would become:
Code Block |
---|
@Action
public class Customer_placeOrder {
private final Customer target; // target
public Customer_placeOrder(Customer target) { ... }
@Value @Accessors(fluent = true)
public static class PlaceOrderParameters { // to assist supporting methods
@Parameter()
Product product;
@Parameter()
int quantity;
}
@Action
public Customer act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } // execution
public boolean hideAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } // supporting methods
public String disableAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public String disable1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public Collection<Product> choices0Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public Product default0Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public int default1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public String validate1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
public String validateAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... }
} |
Discussion
With the parameters object passed in everywhere, I could see myself starting to move functionality onto that object. So as an idiom, we might see the following sort of code (in a mixin):
Code Block |
---|
@Action
public class Customer_placeOrder {
private final Customer target;
public Customer_placeOrder(Customer target) { ... }
@Value @Accessors(fluent = true)
public static class PlaceOrderParameters { ... } // see below.
public static class PlaceOrderEvent extends ActionDomainEvent<Customer> {}
@Action
public Customer act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.act(this); }
public boolean hideAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.hide(this); }
public String disableAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.disable(this); }
public String disable1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.disable1(this); }
public Collection<Product> choices0Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.choices0(this); }
public Product default0Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.default0(this); }
public int default1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.default1(this); }
public String validate1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.validate1(this); }
public String validateAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { params.validate(this); }
} |
which would then beef up the parameters object:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
@Action
public class Customer_placeOrder {
private final Customer target; // target
...
@Value @Accessors(fluent = true)
public static class PlaceOrderParameters {
@Parameter()
Product product;
@Parameter()
int quantity;
public Customer act(Customer customer) { ... } // execution
public boolean hideAct(Customer customer) { ... } // supporting methods
public String disableAct(Customer customer) { ... }
public String disable1Act(Customer customer) { ... }
public Collection<Product> choices0Act(Customer customer) { ... }
public Product default0Act(Customer customer) { ... }
public int default1Act(Customer customer) { ... }
public String validate1Act(Customer customer) { ... }
public String validateAct(Customer customer) { ...}
}
...
@Action
public Customer act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.act(this); } // remainder is just boilerplate
public boolean hideAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.hide(this); }
public String disableAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.disable(this); }
public String disable1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.disable1(this); }
public Collection<Product> choices0Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.choices0(this); } | ||
Code Block | ||
| ||
public class Customer { public Product default0Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.default0(this); } public int default1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.default1(this); } public String validate1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { return params.validate1(this); } public String validateAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { params.validate(this); } } |
Notes:
- the target is still outside of the parameters object
- Event publishing also outside
- Everything else has moved inside the parameters object
- This implies that we would need dependency injection for the parameters object
- The rest of the code in the mixin is just boilerplate. It's possible that the Lombok @Delegate annotation might be used to remove some of this boilerplate, didn't investigate further.
Mixins and Parameters combined (proposed)
The previous section describes an idiom to work within the new Parameter object programming model. But the next step along the journey would be to formally recognise this pattern. This would amount to collapsing the mixin concept and the parameters concept into the same thing. Said another way, mixins start to become stateful, keeping track of the parameter argument values as well as the target object:
Code Block |
---|
@Action public class Customer_placeOrder { private final Customer target; // target @Value @Accessors(fluent = true) public class PlaceOrderParameters { // to assist supporting methods Product product; int quantity; } public static class PlacerOrderEvent extends ActionDomainEvent<Customer> {} // target ... @Action@Parameter(domainEvent = PlaceOrderEvent.class) @MemberOrder(1) // event publishing public Customer placeOrder(Product p, int quantity) { ... } // supporting methods support Product product; // execution@Parameter() @MemberOrder(2) int quantity; @Action public booleanCustomer hidePlaceOrderact() { ... } // supporting methods use PlaceOrderParameters public String disablePlaceOrder() { ... }// execution public Stringboolean disable1PlaceOrderhideAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } public Collection<Product> choices0PlaceOrder() { ... } public Product default0PlaceOrder() { ... } public int default1PlaceOrder() { ... }// supporting methods public String validate1PlaceOrderdisableAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } public String validatePlaceOrderdisable1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } } |
Notes:
- The
@Value
@Accessors(fluent=true)
allows us to use a syntax that is very similar to Java 14 records. - There is some duplication here: the list of the parameter types appears both in the
placeOrder(...)
method, as well as in thePlacerOrdersParameters
class.
The above would also be supported with mixins:
... }
public Collection<Product> choices0Act() { ... }
public Product default0Act() { ... }
public int default1Act() { ... }
public String validate1Act() { ... }
public String validateAct() { ... }
} |
Notes:
- here the supporting methods would simply read from the fields of the mixin that represent the parameters of the mixin itself.
- the domain event class is still separate
@MemberOrder
is required because the JVM does not guarantee the order in the bytecode is the same as in the source file.
Target-less Mixins + Targeted Parameters
Traditionally mixins hold all of the behaviour and a little bit of the state - namely the target object. Meanwhile parameters hold the rest of the state, but without the target.
Another way to divide the responsibilities would be to move the target from the mixin, and add it into the parameters object. In other words, the former would just be the behaviour, the latter would be just the state.
Thus we have an extended parameters object, that also takes the target:
Code Block |
---|
Code Block |
@Action public class Customer_placeOrder { private final Customer target; // target public Customer_placeOrder(Customer target) { ... } @Value @Accessors(fluent = true) public class PlaceOrderParameters { @Target public static class PlaceOrderParameters { // a new annotation Customer customer; @Parameter() Product //product; to assist supporting methods@Parameter() int quantity; } |
Meanwhile the mixin provides just the behaviour, of both the action and also the various supporting methods. The supporting methods all need to take the PlaceOrderParameters, because it now contains the target, at least
Code Block |
---|
@Action public class Customer_placeOrder { Product product; int quantity; }@Action public staticCustomer class PlaceOrderEvent extends ActionDomainEvent<Customer> {act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } // execution public boolean hideAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } @Action(domainEvent = PlaceOrderEvent.class) // supporting methods public String disableAct(PlaceOrderParameters // event publishingparams) { ... } public CustomerString actdisable1Act(Product p, int quantityPlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } public Collection<Product> choices0Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } // execution public booleanProduct hideActdefault0Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } public int default1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } public String validate1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } public String validateAct(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } } |
Command Handlers
Building on the previous example, having split up the behaviour from the state completely, we realise that there's no need to keep all of the methods of the mixin together.
We could rename the "parameters object" as a command:
Code Block |
---|
@Value @Accessors(fluent = true) // supporting methods public Stringclass disableAct()PlaceOrderCommand { ... } public@Target String disable1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } public Collection<Product> choices0Act() { ... } Customer customer; public Product default0Act@Parameter() { ... } Product product; public int default1Act@Parameter() { ... } public String validate1Act(PlaceOrderParameters params) { .int quantity; } |
and then we could have a number of handlers, for example for the execution:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderHandler { @Action.. } public StringCustomer validateActact(PlaceOrderParametersPlaceOrderCommand paramscommand) { ... } } |
Notes:
- we now have three classes here: the mixin, the domain event, and the parameters object.
Parameters on Act syntax (proposed)
This is a variant of the previous, but uses the parameters class in the action as well:
Code Block |
---|
public class Customer { // execution - infer the name of the action from the type } |
and for the preconditions (no need for the "Act" suffix):
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderValidationHandler { public boolean hide(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } // target @Value @Accessors(fluent = true) // supporting methods public String disable(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } public class PlaceOrderParametersString disable1(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } public String validate1(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } public String validate(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } } |
and for the UI hints:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderUiHintsHandler { public Collection<Product> choices0(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } // to assist supporting methods public Product Product product; default0(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } public int quantity; default1(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } } |
Command Handler Contracts
Command handlers in other frameworks often have a single method, called something like "apply" or "accept". We can't quite get there because we not only need to execute the action, but also do the validation and UI hint stuff.
We could though introduce some API to define this contract.
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderHandler implements CommandActHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> {} public static class PlacerOrderEvent extends ActionDomainEvent<Customer> {} @Action(domainEventpublic = PlaceOrderEvent.class) Customer act(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } } |
To hide entire action:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderHideActHandler //implements eventCommandHideActHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> publishing{ public Customerboolean placeOrderhide(PlaceOrderParametersPlaceOrderCommand paramscommand) { ... } // execution public boolean hidePlaceOrder() { ... } |
To hide individual parameters:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderHideParamHandler implements CommandHideParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> { public String hide(PlaceOrderCommand command, int paramNum) { ... } } |
to disable entire action:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderDisableActHandler implements CommandDisableActHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> { public String disable(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... // supporting methods use } } |
To disable individual parameters:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderDisableHandler implements CommandDisableParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> {PlaceOrderParameters public String disablePlaceOrder(disable(PlaceOrderCommand command, int paramNum) { ... } } |
To validate entire parameter set:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderValidateActHandler implements CommandValidateActHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> { public String disable1PlaceOrder(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } public Collection<Product>String choices0PlaceOrdervalidate(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } } |
To validate individual parameters:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderValidateParamHandler implements CommandValidateParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> { public String validate(PlaceOrderCommand command, public Product default0PlaceOrder(int paramNum) { ... } } |
And we keep going for the UI hints.
To return choices:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderChoicesParamHandler implements CommandChoicesParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> { public int default1PlaceOrder() { ... } public StringCollection<Object> validate1PlaceOrder(PlaceOrderParameters paramschoices(PlaceOrderCommand command, int paramNum) { ... } public String validatePlaceOrder(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } } |
Notes:
- this removes the duplication between the
placeOrder(...)
parameter list and the list of members inPlaceOrderParameters
class.
As a mixin, this becomes:
Code Block |
---|
@Action public class Customer_placeOrder { private final Customer target; // bit ugly } |
To provide an autoComplete:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderAutoCompleteHandler implements CommandAutoCompleteParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> { public Collection<Object> autoComplete(PlaceOrderCommand command, int paramNum, String search) { ... } // bit ugly } |
To return defaults:
Code Block |
---|
public class CustomerPlaceOrderDefaultParamHandler implements CommandDefaultParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> { public Object defaultOf(PlaceOrderCommand command, int paramNumtarget public Customer_placeOrder(Customer target) { ... } @Value @Accessors(fluent = true) public static class PlaceOrderParameters { // 'default' is a reserved word } |
Of course, there's nothing to prevent a single class from implementing all of these interfaces:
Code Block |
---|
@Action public class CustomerPlaceOrderHandler implements CommandActHandler<PlaceOrderCommand>, // to assist supporting methods Product product; CommandHideActHandler<PlaceOrderCommand>, int quantity; } public static classCommandHideParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand>, PlaceOrderEvent extends ActionDomainEvent<Customer> {} CommandDisableActHandler<PlaceOrderCommand>, CommandDisableParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand>, @Action(domainEvent = PlaceOrderEvent.class) CommandValidateActHandler<PlaceOrderCommand>, CommandValidateParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand>, // event publishing public Customer act(PlaceOrderParameters) { ... } CommandChoicesParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand>, CommandAutoCompleteParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand>, // execution public boolean hideAct()CommandDefaultParamHandler<PlaceOrderCommand> { ... } public Customer act(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } public boolean hide(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } // supporting methods public String disableAct(hide(PlaceOrderCommand command, int paramNum) { ... } public String disable1Actdisable(PlaceOrderParametersPlaceOrderCommand paramscommand) { ... } { public Collection<Product>String choices0Act(disable(PlaceOrderCommand command, int paramNum) { ... } public ProductString default0Actvalidate(PlaceOrderCommand command) { ... } public String validate(PlaceOrderCommand command, int default1Act(paramNum) { ... } public StringCollection<Object> validate1Act(PlaceOrderParameters paramschoices(PlaceOrderCommand command, int paramNum) { ... } public StringCollection<Object> validateActautoComplete(PlaceOrderParameters params) { ... } } |
Notes:
- we still have three classes here (mixin, parameters and domain event), but we have removed the duplication between the
act(...)
parameter list and the list of members ofPlaceOrderParameters
class
Discussion
With the parameters object passed in everywhere, I could see myself starting to move functionality onto that object. So as an idiom, we might see the following sort of code (in a mixin):
Mixins and Parameters combined (proposed)
...
PlaceOrderCommand command, int paramNum, String search) { ... }
public Object defaultOf(PlaceOrderCommand command, int paramNum) { ... }
} |