> > > To answer Paul's question: why is it ugly to have service.saveBeanName()? > > I often find I ask a service for a bean (either newFoo() or > getFooById(id)) and then do a bunch of stuff to it and then want to > save it. I'm not always in a context where I directly have the service > available to save the bean - and I don't want to have to write "stub" > saveFoo(), saveBar() methods on the service just to have them turn > round and call transfer.save(bean) (since they all do exactly the same > thing and it doesn't matter what type the bean is!). >
Yup. Got it. I the case of a get, or new, transfer requires the class name to return a Transfer Object. In the case of save, it accepts the Transfer Object and works the magic. I was being dense.... :( -- Paul Marcotte Fancy Bread - in the heart or in the head? http://www.fancybread.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
