You shouln't put view dependencies on your model beans. JSF is pure view
technology, and your backing beans will probably include logic strictly
related to presentation (events, actions, etc). Thus, put the model on
other layer, and treat your beans as a bridge between view and the real
model.
Through (facade-like) services you could still be able to access your
model logic with no dependencies on presentation technology (for
instance, through web services).
That's my view. but as mentioned before...it always depends.
Julian
Matthias Klein wrote:
Thanks for your super quick response.
Well, that document says that the BackingBeans belong into the presentation
tier.
But as far as I understand Backing Beans, they are the Model of the JSF MVC.
Am I wrong?
If I am not too far off - what would be the responsibility of the Business
Objects?
In many cases applications just take data from a user or present data to a
user. In that case, the business tier would be pretty empty as it just
passes data from the frontend to the backend - and vice versa.
Sorry. I am quite confused right now.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Julián García [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2006 23:03
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: Architecture question
Maybe you could find this useful:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-07-2004/jw-0719-jsf.html
Julian
Matthias Klein wrote:
If an application has 3 tiers: presentation, business, backend - in
which of those would you put the JSF Model (the Backing Beans?)
When I read through the www, I have to assume that it belongs in the
business tier while the "rest" of the "JSF stuff" belongs into the
presentation tier, right?
But if you want a "good" architecture - shouldn't there be some sort
of interface or facade centralizing the business tier access? (Like:
all requests go through one gate?) Does anyone have a good JSF based
architecture in UML (easier to talk about a diagram instead of trying
to describe it with words)
Thanks
matt
