IMO both approaches are valid in different situations, and it entirely depends on the app. If I have multiple view layers (eg jsf and jax rs I will likely want some sort of controller bean betweeny business layer and jsf, so as to not let jsf concerns leak. Otoh if it was just a web app with a jsf front end only, maybe I would dispose of this layer.
-- Pete Muir http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete On 22 Dec 2011, at 11:36, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> wrote: > I tried this a few times recently. the main issue that pops up is that the > EJB timeouts and WEB timeouts in the platform do not sync up. so if you're > idle on a page for 5 minutes, your stateful EJB disappears, unless you have > someone change container config. > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 5:49 AM, José Rodolfo Freitas > <[email protected]> wrote: > CDI created the possibility to reach any bean in the container from a JSF > view, encouraging a closer approach between ejb and jsf (or any cdi bean and > jsf), which can potentially lead to a simpler application design. I think > that is great! > > However, I'm observing that this new programming model has been experimenting > user resistance. The "traditional" way of doing things, using a "ViewBean" > accessing a Stateless Service seems to be the > more legit. > > What do you think about this? I'd like to discuss best practices around it as > I see it's on the core of almost every web application design. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > seam-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
_______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
