@Sean Sounds good to me. I was going to say that there is the potential for a lot of code duplication in that case, but of course you could simply have a 3rd private method in the service that does accept a UserBean object passed from one of the other two methods (saveUserSession(), SaveUser()).
So Sean I would assume that you too create your transients in the service layer and somehow pass in all the form/url variables (20-30 of them sometimes) into there... On Jan 13, 2008 5:46 PM, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2008 3:41 PM, Baz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm in the same camp as both of you. So lets look at a situation where > for > > one event you interact with a USER in the session scope, but for other > > events the USER is created on the request. > > Those would be two different APIs on the service. One deals with the > current user (as a facade to where it is stored). The other deals with > access to a specific user. > > As others have said, controllers should be dumb, services (and domain > objects) should contain all the logic. > -- > Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN > An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
