Sorry for not being able to post my gist. After writting some "sketches", I realized that I don't have it very clear in my mind yet.
just to move from zero I posted something: https://gist.github.com/1245041 It's a really simple example on how we could avoid inheritance, but it's not contemplating a lot of needed features, so I'm not even near to be convinced with that gist. btw, the @AutoHome approach seems very nice. On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Dan Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > Exactly. flush() has a specific purpose and really doesn't belong in > boilerplate code. > > - Dan Allen > > Sent from my Android-powered phone: > An open platform for carriers, consumers and developers > On Sep 22, 2011 11:19 AM, "Max Rydahl Andersen" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > just one comment: > > > > Calling .flush() on every alteration really should not be promoted as a > good practice. > > > > /max > > > > On Sep 22, 2011, at 24:22, Dan Allen wrote: > > > >> Here's some additional feedback I received from a community member a > while back...to merge it into this thread. > >> > >> (begin feedback) > >> > >> ...from being burned from 3 seam based customers with apps and > maintenance. The "Home" or any other name should be just be put into a grave > and slowly cast away to sea ;). It is too heavy and complicated and just > about anything inherited (extends) truly causes heartache[Favor Composition > over inheritance: Effective Java]. The current seam home has a few super > classes above the home and when you try to unit test it (the standard > definition of unit-testing including isolation) you get the "No Active > Application Context Found (if I remember it right). That happens because it > is tightly coupled with the application. But not to be hard on Home, I do > realize the history of the home object and know it was developed when EL had > no parameters. So I have learned a lot since then and I here are some things > that I can impart to Seam 3. > >> > >> 1. My "Home" now is a "ServiceBean", and I have one for each "Major" > entity, see below. I have really stewed over this over months and months, > and the "Home" of "ServiceBean" should be kept small, focused, reusable, > tested and untouched. It's only task is to update, persist, possibly remove, > or some other functions that are required. In my example below I have custom > close action. Notice also that although these beans are stateful that > doesn't mean everything should be, so in these methods I have the parameter > of what is being needed to be updated, and not a field. In other words I > don't have @In private Job job, I opted for public boolean update(job). > Mostly because, again, I want to make this service bean reusable so whether > I have a #{newJob}, #{copyOfAJob}, or #{managedJob} or whatever component of > job I need to work on I only need one jobServiceBean to cater to all my > jobs, in whatever conversation I am using. I also fire events from here if I > need to do that. ! > > After this is tested, and what I need I usually don't touch it anymore. > If I need to enhance I either use a decorator pattern around it, or enhance > it in an @Observer. I'll email about that later. > >> > >> @Name("jobServiceBean") > >> @Scope(ScopeType.CONVERSATION) > >> public class JobServiceBean implements JobService { > >> private EntityManager entityManager; > >> private StatusMessages statusMessages; > >> > >> @In > >> public void setEntityManager(EntityManager entityManager) { > >> this.entityManager = entityManager; > >> } > >> > >> @In > >> public void setStatusMessages(StatusMessages statusMessages) { > >> this.statusMessages = statusMessages; > >> } > >> > >> public boolean update(Job job) { > >> this.entityManager.flush(); > >> this.statusMessages.add(StatusMessage.Severity.INFO, "Successfully > updated job {0}", job.getName()); > >> return true; > >> } > >> > >> public boolean close(Job job) { > >> job.setJobStatus(JobStatus.CLOSED); > >> this.entityManager.flush(); > >> this.statusMessages.add(StatusMessage.Severity.INFO, "Successfully > closed job {0}", job.getName()); > >> return true; > >> } > >> } > >> > >> 2. One thing you may have noticed from above that there is no 'instance' > field with corresponding getters or setters like the old 'Home'. So the > ServiceBean in my case is not a full crud, but CUD + your own business > methods. That's because that too should be decoupled because we never know > the source of the object is. Is the object created from a factory? from a > copy? is it a mapped component, a managed component? Creation of objects or > loading of objects, or the manufacturing of objects from factories should be > separate from the "home" or in my case the "ServiceBean". > >> > >> (end feedback) > >> > >> -- > >> Dan Allen > >> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action > >> Registered Linux User #231597 > >> > >> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about > >> http://mojavelinux.com > >> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> forge-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev > > > > /max > > http://about.me/maxandersen > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > forge-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev > > _______________________________________________ > seam-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev > >
_______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
