> Say, I have a list of users. I would create a userList ArrayCollection and > stick that into the model (bindable and all that). > Now, this ArrayCollection is actually a bunch of User objects. > I would therefore put the User class into the model package, and not in the > vo package.
> Are you saying you would call this a UserVO and place it in the vo package? Yup. > This goes back to my "definition" of VO: objects that are sent across the > wire. > So my reasoning was that if you send something across the wire and it's not > "part of the model", then it should be in the vo > package. My definition would be more along the lines of: bindable, typed data object (which may or may not get sent across the wire). regards, Muzak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jorge Maiquez" <jmaiq...@yahoo.com> To: <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:30 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] cairngorm convention: vo or model? >> don't belong in the model package though, that's where the model belongs, >> not data classes > > Erhm, then maybe I don't know what a model is :-) > > Say, I have a list of users. I would create a userList ArrayCollection and > stick that into the model (bindable and all that). Now, > this ArrayCollection is actually a bunch of User objects. I would therefore > put the User class into the model package, and not in > the vo package. > > Are you saying you would call this a UserVO and place it in the vo package? > > Thanks for the response btw! >
