>
>
> My current thinking is that objects from the model package are indeed
> destined to be cached in the session and application scopes, but only
> as generic Object references (Beans). i.e.:
>
> - User submits login form.
> - Login Action gets called, marshals username, password to login()
> function of business logic.
> - Business logic consults database (with Connection from DataSource
> cached in 'registry')
> - (If password is correct), login() returns new UserBean Object
> - Login Action installs UserBean Object in session scope, then
> forwards to next page
> - JSP components read whatever user-displayable junk they need from
> stored UserBean.
>
> Is this not an acceptable way to do it? IIUC You seemed to react with
> alarm to the notion ("surely you don't have any model components
> hanging around in sessions or application scope?"). Hence my
> explanation.
I don't think a bean with user data is a model bean - it's a data bean
or data transfer bean or at least the acronym is DTO.
state beans, that's EJB-speak isn't it? Not sure whether it means the
same thing.
VO for value object - that might also be the same thing but I'm not sure.
What you outline above would be what I'd do
>> From general discussion on this list your assumption about the
>> 'right way' would be correct - pass all you need into the model
>> components as parameters.
>
>
> By subclassing ActionServlet to properly initialize the back end, then
> using that ActionServlet rather than the 'stock' one?
I mean by passing it to the model object when you instantiate it in your
Action perform(). I haven't done it your way using a Registry
Regards
Adam
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
