myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig McClanahan" <craig...@apache.org>
Subject Re: spring conversation start (@manfred)
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:29:41 GMT
On 12/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Well,
>
> sometimes somethings work well, even the "design" is not that best.
> Regard the separation, I think that is true for the
> "updateActionListener" as well.
> I love that guy, Trinidad has a similar and now the spec folks saw
> what's useful und added it


Just out of curiousity, where did they add "it"?  I don't see any reference
to updateActionListener in 1.2.

By the way, is this similar to (or identical to) your idea for a preupdate()
method in Shale's ViewController (SHALE-338)?  If so, I still like the idea
...  just need to see the follow through :-).

Craig

Just my $0.02
>
> -M
>
> On 12/20/06, Werner Punz <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
> > Craig McClanahan schrieb:
> > >
> > > One of the architectural approaches that MyFaces developers seem to do
> > > pretty often, even when they don't have to, is think of everything as
> > > needing a component.  To me, this involves the person building the
> view
> > > in decisions that really belong to the person working on the business
> > > logic.  Yes, it's often the same person, but where is the separation
> of
> > > concerns?
> > >
> > That was indeed the concerns of the original scope tag
> > (I am using it currently btw. it is excellent work)
> > the original intent was to have a viable replacement for savestate
> > which would allow quick and dirty scoping with a
> > a visual/tag approach.
> >
> > Mario did this approach and he solved it in an excellent way
> > and yes, there is a break in separation of concerns and it was
> > intended by design to ease the development of small applications,
> >
> > you basically push the scope control and parts of the transaction
> > handling into the visual part.
> >
> > But the idea was to have a tag like way for those things, and if you
> > need it differently (which many apps do but many small ones dont)
> > have other frameworks deal with it.
> >
> > Now Mario, now he is moving into the Spring domain with his stuff, seems
> > to be covering, let other frameworks do the scope control approach,
> > as well.
> >
> > Btw. The scope tag of Mario is really excellent you should give it a
> > try, but I agree, separation of concerns is not really there and cannot
> > be by design principle, but there are other frameworks and solutions
> > to deal with this.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>

Mime
View raw message