Greg Hess wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have designed our service layer using normal classes, I initialize the
> service layer on application start up and place them in the ServletContext.
> I have been looking at this strategy and considering using Static methods as
> well, as the only state in these class
July 30, 2002 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Architecture advice
>
> Naming services is certainly a great way to do configurable factory
methods
> but I think what you want is still the facade.
>
> >From: "Michael Delamere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "
- Original Message -
From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Architecture advice
> Sorry Michael, it seems that I've confused the issue with this factory
> method busin
Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Architecture advice
>Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:04:48 +0200
>
>near bottom :-)
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Eddie Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Struts Users Mailing List" &l
near bottom :-)
- Original Message -
From: "Eddie Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: Architecture advice
> David Graham wrote:
>
> > Now we'
- Original Message -
>From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:11 PM
>Subject: Re: Architecture advice
>
>
> > Now we're onto "how to design a factory method" :-). So if you
see below:
- Original Message -
From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: Architecture advice
> Now we're onto "how to design a factory method" :-). So if you have ma
David Graham wrote:
> Now we're onto "how to design a factory method" :-). So if you have
> many different service objects you could just compose your
> ServiceFacade of these objects and publish their interfaces. This is
> the true use of the facade pattern so your code doesn't need to know
---
>From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 4:10 PM
>To: Struts Users Mailing List
>Subject: RE: Architecture advice
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Chappell, Simon P wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:06:03 -0500
>&g
f instance, or do you pass a parameter to the
>"factory" and return an instance accordingly?
>
>Thanks for your time.
>
>Michael
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>S
ns synchronized sections, but otherwise you'll be
>fine.
>
>-Arian
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From:Michael Delamere [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent:Monday, July 29, 2002 2:30 PM
>> To: Struts Users Mailing List
>> Subject:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Chappell, Simon P wrote:
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:06:03 -0500
> From: "Chappell, Simon P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Struts Users Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Users Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Su
s, but otherwise you'll be
> fine.
>
> -Arian
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Delamere [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 2:30 PM
> > To: Struts Users Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: Architecture advice
> >
&g
ichael Delamere [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 2:30 PM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Architecture advice
>
> Thanks to you also!
>
> It´s a great help to hear other peoples experiences. What we were worried
> about is tha
pass a parameter to the
"factory" and return an instance accordingly?
Thanks for your time.
Michael
- Original Message -
From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Architecture advice.
.
Thanks for your advice. I don´t know what I´d do without these lists! :-)
Michael
- Original Message -
From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Architecture advice
> I chose not to impl
- Original Message -
From: "Greg Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: Architecture advice
> I just recently seen an implementation that used static method
gt;From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 8:59 PM
>Subject: Re: Architecture advice
>
>
> > Sounds like a "how to implement a facade" problem. I would make your
> > service lay
ssage-
From: Michael Delamere [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 3:22 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Architecture advice
Am I understanding you correctly that you weren´t happy with the first
approach? What were your experiences that´s getting you to ret
age-
>From: Michael Delamere [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 2:44 PM
>To: Struts Users Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Architecture advice
>
>
>Nice to hear. I suppose worried was the wrong word :-) !
>Basically our
>experience with this type
OTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:27 PM
Subject: RE: Architecture advice
> Not yet! Of course, the API methods are 100% passthrough. They exist only
to prevent "M" mixing with the "V" and "C". To that extent, I am not too
worried.
>
> Simon
&
nday, July 29, 2002 2:30 PM
>To: Struts Users Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Architecture advice
>
>
>Thanks to you also!
>
>It´s a great help to hear other peoples experiences. What we
>were worried
>about is that all calls for a particular job would go via the
>
your time.
Regards,
Michael
- Original Message -
From: "Chappell, Simon P" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:06 PM
Subject: RE: Architecture advice
> Well, what we did to sepe
, 2002 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Architecture advice
> Sounds like a "how to implement a facade" problem. I would make your
> service layer a singleton with a factory method to retrieve the instance.
> That way you avoid the static method calls and maintain the symantics of
>
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: Architecture advice
> Hi,
>
> I have designed our service layer using normal classes, I initialize the
> service layer on application start up and place them in the
ServletContext.
> I have been lookin
Well, what we did to seperate Struts from the backend was to implement what we called
a "Firebreak". We created an abstract Java class called API.java. It's whole purpose
in life was to be the application API to the model component. This would enable us to
utilise alternative views and/or cont
Hi,
I have designed our service layer using normal classes, I initialize the
service layer on application start up and place them in the ServletContext.
I have been looking at this strategy and considering using Static methods as
well, as the only state in these classes is the jdbc driver and bas
Sounds like a "how to implement a facade" problem. I would make your
service layer a singleton with a factory method to retrieve the instance.
That way you avoid the static method calls and maintain the symantics of
passing messages to objects (the singleton). You also avoid creating a new
28 matches
Mail list logo
