denil

Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:48:54 -0500

Thanks for the nice blog. It was very useful for me. Keep sharing such ideas in the future as well. This was actually what I was looking for, and I am glad to came here! Thanks for sharing the such information with us.

Always keep the businesslogic in the businesslayer...

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:55:54 -0500

Currently the lifespan of a web-layer is shorter then the lifespan of the services. Especially is services are re-used, like webservices/SOAP. That means you should really seperate the two... Else you need to reinvent the wheel if you change the...

Re: Its like buying insurance

Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:48:34 -0500

I know we are not here to discuss the validity of the metaphor, but. . . ...

Re: It's like buying insurance

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:16:51 -0500

Actually, insurance is provably a bad investment. If it wasn't so, no insurance company would be in business. The insurers are betting that they won't have to pay out as much as they take in. And by and large, their right. Even after a disaster, most...

Re: There's only one real option.

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:01:59 -0500

Some people will even test getters and setters...

It's another question

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:12:28 -0500

I feel like the real question (after you have decoupled presentation controller and business facade) is where to construct your pojo:...

Re: Web Application: To couple or Not to couple?

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:26:00 -0500

There are good reasons for decoupling:...

Re: Not strictly true

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:13:16 -0500

Even if the actions are POJOs they still have a dependency on web types such as HTTPServletRequest, which means you will need to use mock objects in you unit tests for these. no?

...

not really

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:47:33 -0500

Even if the actions are POJOs they still have a dependency on web types such as HTTPServletRequest, which means you will need to use mock objects in you unit tests for these. no?

...

"Business Logic"

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:51:12 -0500

At the end of the day, decoupling is good and the overhead is negligible (well if you really want you can create a configuration nightmare from it, but you don't have to - there is always new() :-) ). ...

Re: Web Application: To couple or Not to couple?

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:11:30 -0500

I did not know (maybe I am wrong) that with Struts2 you can inject a session like a Map. I think you are taking decoupled as "not extending anything".

...

It's like buying insurance

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:45:29 -0500

I recall a lot of times when splitting the code into the action framework action class (Struts) or method (JSF) and the business facade looked like an overhead....

Re: Web Application: To couple or Not to couple?

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:52:43 -0500

For me, as a general rule, #1 is the most obvious solution....

Not strictly true

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:15:06 -0500

Even if the actions are POJOs they still have a dependency on web types such as HTTPServletRequest, which means you will need to use mock objects in you unit tests for these. no?

Re: Web Application: To couple or Not to couple?

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:02:35 -0500

Mentawai is totally different than Struts2. Mentawai is full-stack, does not use any annotation-hell or xml-hell

...

Support Forums: Message List - Web Application: To couple or Not to couple?

denil

Always keep the businesslogic in the businesslayer...

Re: Its like buying insurance

Re: It's like buying insurance

Re: There's only one real option.

It's another question

Re: Web Application: To couple or Not to couple?

Re: Not strictly true

not really

"Business Logic"

Re: Web Application: To couple or Not to couple?

It's like buying insurance

Re: Web Application: To couple or Not to couple?

Not strictly true

Re: Web Application: To couple or Not to couple?