I agree with the fact the "traditional" way of doing things is hard ot get rid of, I agree with Pete too, but if I may, I'd say it's often hard or impossible to avoid some "view bean".
You can, when you only want to display stuff that doesn't need any 'UI' reformatting. Otoh, take a canonical CRUD: the submit button requires an action method you don't have in your business layer. So it must go on a bean standing behind the view. Another example: feed a table on the screen. If the objects fetched from the business layer can be displayed as-is, you can directly call the EJB. But many developers will be reluctant to annotate it @Named. So you have to wire your business methods through a view bean which is known to EL. Now, if the elements on the table require any manipulation/action, you have to encapsulate them and there's no other way but to get the cooking done on some view bean. And as development teams are required to work in a "normalized" way no matter what's going to be on the screen, you end up having complete web applications wiring all the biz methods through view beans. After all I see no probmem with that, with CDI everyone can work the way he wants. In my application I get all the db/xml configs via producer methods, and I did a custom scope/context to refresh them without restarting anything. So no matter whether you want to do simple of sophisticated things, CDI has a solution in store. fm. On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Peter Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > -- http://www.suntriprecords.com
_______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
