myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Holger Prause <h.pra...@gmx.net>
Subject Re: packe structure question
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:18:51 GMT
Nebinger, David schrieb:
> Well, since no one jumped in with an opinion, I'll share our methodology...
>
>   
>> i am currently programming a jsf application and i found out 
>> that i have 
>> 2 different things in every package
>>
>> .beans (jsf beans)
>> .action(jsf action)
>>
>> Now how should i structure my packages.
>>     
>
> First, we're not splitting beans from actions, but that's because we're accepting the
fact that the actions are really tied to the beans and vice-versa.  In our environment, a
managed bean represents a form, and the actions are truly tied to that form also, so there
is no real reason to separate the two.  Your architecture could be different, so I'd assume
that you must have some reason to separate them.
>
> Since we are building portlets, we've structured our packages to be based upon the portlet
rather than scoped on some other concept.  So for portlet A, the objects fall under com.mycom.portlet.a.*,
etc.  Portlets typically have much finer scope than a generic app, so the number of objects
we end up with is pretty small, so the this organization does not become overwhelming.
>
> The basic answer to your question is that there is no real answer, it is all going to
be based upon your project and the structure should represent something applicable to the
project, whether it is based on workflow, page structure, object graph structure, whatever.
>
>   

Hello first of all thanks for your reply.

quote: "The basic answer to your question is that there is no real 
answer, it is all going to be based upon your project and the structure 
should represent something applicable to the project, whether it is 
based on workflow, page structure, object graph structure, whatever."

Well i was afraid to get such an answer ^^


quote: "In our environment, a managed bean represents a form, and the 
actions are truly tied to that form also, so there is no real reason to 
separate the two. "

Hmm, thats also the case in my environment, i am using  jsf for a while 
now and u always have
1)entity beans (data objects)
2)jsf bean / managed beans (data representation)
3)jsf actions (logic)

thats why i wanted to separate them: (reasons for different packages)
* All my actions have logic, they implements a Buisness Interface and 
are stateless,
* All my beans are plain java objects with nearly no logic and are 
mostly session beans

on the other hand actions and beans always works hand in hand(like u 
wrote before) but only for the current module.

example:
my.company.frontend.foo.groups.GroupsListBean (Session Bean)
my.company.frontend.foo.groups.ManageGroup (buiseness interface)
my.company.frontend.foo.groups.ManageGroupAction (Stateless Bean with 
buiseness interface)


So the main problem is : jsf bean /action have some things in common 
(works together for a certain thing) but some
are different (actions have logic, they implements a Buisness Interface 
and are stateless,  beans are plain java objects with nearly no logic 
and are mostly session beans ), so is he differece worth
a new package?


I think ill choose your way and move actions and beans into the same 
package (by the way: the backend is separated from the frontend , so i 
have 2 packages "frontend" and "backend" , think that necessary),
maybe it gets problematic if u have many classes in a package (1 entity 
bean = 3 frontend classes)


If u have any further comments on it , please i would like to hear.

Thank you very much,

Holger




Mime
View raw message