At 14:54 22.02.2001 , you wrote:
My two cents ...
Putting checks in the EJB's will give you much better information on
exactly what has gone wrong. Adding checks in the DB as well can't hurt,
but without the EJB checks it might be hard to know what action to take in
the face of a generic SQL
At 19:16 21.02.2001 , you wrote:
hi,
check EJB-INTEREST archives for discussions on this. I think most pros and
cons (including my view on things ;-) were in a discussion a few months ago.
at the moment the server hosting the search seems to be down, so I cannot
give you the exact thread.
Title: RE: No influence on CMP 2.0 getter setter methods - a feature or abug?
The search engine is back up. Here is the start of the
thread on database constraints vs. ejb constraints:
http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0007=ejb-interest=R49824
There seems to be some
There seems to be some smart-ass named "Robert Krueger"
who thinks he knows all the answers :) :) :)
I've heard of him. he must be a real pain in the ass ;).
cheers,
robert
Thanks Robert!
-tim
(-) Robert Krger
(-) SIGNAL 7 Gesellschaft fr Informationstechnologie mbH
(-) Brder-Knau-Str. 79
My two cents ...
Putting checks in the EJB's will give you much better information on
exactly what has gone wrong. Adding checks in the DB as well can't hurt,
but without the EJB checks it might be hard to know what action to take in
the face of a generic SQL error.
Nick Newman
At 01:11 PM
You don't want to put logic in Entity beans. Entity beans should only
serve as models for the database.
Put the logic in the Session beans that will call setBalance and any other
methods you have. You can make all those methods one atomic transaction by
declaring it in the descriptor as well.
-
I frequently hear this mantra repeated, and while it is largely a good
idea, I have difficulty seeing why it should be adhered to dogmatically.
There is value in being able to define side-effects of setters and
getters or minimal bean-specific business logic. As a trivial example I
offer my
