Drew Cox wrote: > ... > I firmly believe your "model" classes should not be tied to a particular > presentation format (JSP, GUI, ??). But remember, this is just a class, > not a bean. This "model" class can be composited into, or inherited > from, in a JSP-aware bean that handles creating a HTML-(XML) based view > of that model. I usually ended up having two beans: * a "pure" bean which had zero knowledge of presentation issues (and is often closely bound to a database entity), and * a derived bean which had presentation support for a particular context. The base bean is really a bean, because it has properties related to its underlying database entity. The derived bean uses the properties but adds presentation support. My point is that what you are calling "just a class, not a bean", I find definitely *should* be a bean, but a "pure" bean, not a "JSP bean". cc
begin:vcard n:Cobb;Christopher tel;cell:703-909-7550 tel;fax:703-648-7475 tel;work:703-648-6725 x-mozilla-html:TRUE org:Powerhouse Technologies, Inc. adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:SW Architect fn:Christopher Cobb end:vcard
