91 lines
No EOL
4.2 KiB
JSON
91 lines
No EOL
4.2 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "21f3f75a-e37f-44b6-81f5-337cc11e5eac"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:18+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_log": [],
|
|
"status": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"title": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "Why you need layers in your application code"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2024-03-04T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:18+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2024\/03\/04\/why-you-need-layers-in-your-application-code",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>You need to add an integration with a new service or supplier to your application code.<\/p>\n\n<p>You should avoid writing code that interacts directly with that service or supplier - a.k.a tightly-coupled code.<\/p>\n\n<p>What if you change to a different service or supplier in the future?<\/p>\n\n<p>What if they release a new version of their API that includes breaking changes?<\/p>\n\n<p>If your code is tightly coupled to a single implementation, you'd need to rewrite the code, and there wouldn't be a way to easily switch from the old version to the new one.<\/p>\n\n<p>By introducing an adapter layer, you make your code more loosely coupled.<\/p>\n\n<p>You can have multiple implementations, with one for each different supplier, service, or version.<\/p>\n\n<p>You can have a consistent interface and API for every implementation, making them hot-swappable and making it easy to switch between different implementations.<\/p>\n\n<p>If you change supplier or they release a new version, you write a new implementation for it and switch when you're ready.<\/p>\n\n<p>Also, as every implementation satisfies a common interface, it's easy to make a fake implementation that you can use for testing.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>You need to add an integration with a new service or supplier to your application code.<\/p>\n\n<p>You should avoid writing code that interacts directly with that service or supplier - a.k.a tightly-coupled code.<\/p>\n\n<p>What if you change to a different service or supplier in the future?<\/p>\n\n<p>What if they release a new version of their API that includes breaking changes?<\/p>\n\n<p>If your code is tightly coupled to a single implementation, you'd need to rewrite the code, and there wouldn't be a way to easily switch from the old version to the new one.<\/p>\n\n<p>By introducing an adapter layer, you make your code more loosely coupled.<\/p>\n\n<p>You can have multiple implementations, with one for each different supplier, service, or version.<\/p>\n\n<p>You can have a consistent interface and API for every implementation, making them hot-swappable and making it easy to switch between different implementations.<\/p>\n\n<p>If you change supplier or they release a new version, you write a new implementation for it and switch when you're ready.<\/p>\n\n<p>Also, as every implementation satisfies a common interface, it's easy to make a fake implementation that you can use for testing.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |