Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 36175 invoked from network); 4 May 2006 09:06:43 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 May 2006 09:06:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 19161 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2006 09:06:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-myfaces-dev-archive@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 19116 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2006 09:06:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@myfaces.apache.org Received: (qmail 19101 invoked by uid 99); 4 May 2006 09:06:40 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 May 2006 02:06:40 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of gcjmu-myfaces-dev@m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.91.229.2] (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 May 2006 02:06:39 -0700 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FbZmf-0007db-AE for dev@myfaces.apache.org; Thu, 04 May 2006 11:06:05 +0200 Received: from 195.78.47.10 ([195.78.47.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 04 May 2006 11:06:05 +0200 Received: from werpu by 195.78.47.10 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 04 May 2006 11:06:05 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: dev@myfaces.apache.org From: Werner Punz Subject: Re: Summer of Code Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 11:05:48 +0200 Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <16275204.256201146673319747.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Reply-To: werpu@gmx.at Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.78.47.10 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) In-Reply-To: <16275204.256201146673319747.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Sender: news X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N jacob@hookom.net schrieb: > I've been chatting with Gavin about this for some time-- the code generation vs. dynamic generation for scaffolding. I believe the tooling coming from seam/hbm is all code generation where I would think there would be advantages to having component sets that dynamically determine validators and converters based on metadata. Higher level components could be constructed to actually compose the CRUD pages as a droppable component. > 1 1/2 years ago, I did my own Crud Generation system based on xdoclet (where I added annotations to the orm mapping classes). Well, to sum it up, it cut down the development time for an actual project around 70%, so having such a system in place is really vital. But the problem is, I think in the end only a combined approach of generators and scaffolding makes sense. Crud Generators produce averagly a higher number of artefacts than what is needed in many situations, due to the higher abstraction of the code it generates. But on the other hand they give you the freedom to interfere at a later stage manually, which you would lose in a pure scaffolding approach. For a quick check and for the reduction of artefacts I think combining that with scaffolding makes more sense, in a way that you can get the best of both worlds.