struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hubert Rabago <jakartau...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: Theoretical debate
Date Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:17:14 GMT
--- Frank Zammetti <fzammett@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know what your saying, it's the way I do things as well, doing very
> little work in the Actions aside from tossing values around and calling
> subordinate classes to do the real work.
> 
> But doesn't that in a sense support the idea of an application being 
> services cobbled together?  

In practice, it is.  To me, though, the way I approach the implementation is
heavily influenced by my mindset while working out the design in theory.  For
instance, with the mindset that the business logic tier *is the application*
and that the presentation tier is just a necessary add-on, my DTOs will hold
Date fields instead of strings containing date-formatted values, and I'd have
the Action objects bending over for the business tier, and not the other way
around.  In my mindset, the Actions aren't calling subordinate classes, they
themselves are the subordinates, re reporting to their superiors which they
serve.  

If my mindset is that the app is a set of web requests that work to meet the
requirements, I probably wouldn't hesitate passing ActionForm objects all the
way to the data management tier.  My point is, how I look at the design, and
how I preach it to my teammates, can still influence the implementation.

> In that mindset, I can see some logic to saying something like Crysalis is 
> on a better path because your simplifying things a bit by essentially 
> removing a layer.  

This is where my mindset affects the implementation.  In my mind, the web
tier has no business calling my domain objects directly.  They all have to go
through my fašade.  It's the fašade which knows what's happening and sees the
big picture.  If the business rule changes, it's the business tier that
changes.  If I suddenly have to expose a feature for another application, it
can talk to my fašade.

It's just a different mindset for me.

> Also, please no one get the idea that I'm saying Struts is anything but 
> good, or that I'm saying we shouldn't be doing things the way we are doing 
> them now.  My point in starting this thread was just to point what I
thought 
> was an interesting way to look at things that I hadn't considered before,
> at least not precisely.  If anything, much of the responses I've read have 
> reinforced my belief that what we're doing now in Struts is generally
pretty 
> good.  I am a big believer in the services model of development, have been 
> for a number of years now (although I'm not so sure the current forms of 
> this methodology are spot on just yet), so discussions of things like this 
> are always of interest to me.
> 
> Frank

In my case, I just wanna state that I too am interested in these discussions.
 I know my messages can sometimes be read as trying to start an argument
instead of participating in the discussion.  Let it be known that it's really
the latter.  I'm open to ideas, and I'm always looking for ways to improve
how I approach the design of applications, web or not.

Hubert



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org


Mime
View raw message