Good anecdote but I am confused!
You said 'in this case the
Service should be earning it's keep and making sure the documents are
valid
and ready for it's client, the model. '
Are you sure about this? Shouldn't the model be responsible for making
sure things are valid - ie look after itself.
I see the service more as a smart api that delegates to the model for
all the business logic and also can provide 'application-specific'
functionality like logging, email notifications etc
But maybe I'm misunderstanding it or taking the anecdote too
seriously! It's more accurate than the MVC song at least :-)
Alan
On Jan 15, 12:47 pm, "Adam Haskell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've used this anecdote before, and I think it is amusing so I'll use it
> again. The way I think about it is The model and View are going through a
> divorce and the controller and service are the lawyers. Now thinking about
> it in these terms, would it make sense for the Controller (the View's
> lawyer) to be taking care of the Model's Affairs, in this case validating
> documents for the model? That doesn't make much sense, in this case the
> Service should be earning it's keep and making sure the documents are valid
> and ready for it's client, the model. Sure the Controller might throw in
> some JS for the View to do some preliminary checking so the always bitchy,
> soon-to-be ex, spouse won't complain but it really is the spouses lawyer's
> duty to inform the spouse that the documents are valid, or return the
> documents to some one telling them to try again, no deal. That being said
> Brian's earlier statement about calling something from Flex really has
> helped me clear up what should go where. Anecdotes provide a means to
> getting over the hump but once you are over the hump real life programming
> drives the point home and Brian's example/thought process is spot on.
>
> Adam Haskell
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 11:53 PM, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It depends on what you mean by "appropriate methods", but if you're
> > talking about something similar to what Peter used an an example:
>
> > If (Order.isValid())
> > {
> > Order.save();
> > }
> > Else
> > {
> > Screen = OrderForm;
> > Data = Order;
> > };
>
> > No, I wouldn't be doing that in the Controller (and I think we might be
> > getting some miscommunication here because I'm pretty sure Peter and Sean
> > wouldn't either). My Controllers are very dumb. The only thing they do is
> > ask the Model to perform some business logic (via the service layer), and
> > then invoke the appropriate views or execute a redirect. That covers 99% of
> > what my Controllers do.
>
> > The problem with doing something like the above in the Controller means
> > that the model is no longer neutral and self-contained. I can't call the
> > service layer from Flex now, because the logic that checks validity and does
> > saving is executed by the Controller, not the Model. I would have a method
> > in my service named something like " orderService.saveOrder(orderData)",
> > and internally that service layer method might create an Order, validate it,
> > save it, and return a success or failure result that the Controller can then
> > use to determine how to proceed (cflocation or redisplay form with errors,
> > for example). I'm pretty sure that this is what Sean and Peter are also
> > talking about.
>
> > On Jan 14, 2008 9:11 PM, Baz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Sean, Brian, it seems you are both on board with getting a newUserBean()
> > > from the service in the controller then calling the appropriate methods on
> > > that UserBean later on in the controller. Do you also handle queries or
> > > multiple objects in the same way that Peter does? That is, do you code
> > > gateway-type methods into your service that interact with a DAO/Gateway to
> > > return multiple instances of your object?
>
> > > Baz
>
> > > On Jan 14, 2008 4:40 PM, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> > > > Absolutely, I didn't mean to imply that the service actually does
> > > > everything itself.
>
> > > > On Jan 14, 2008 7:35 PM, Sean Corfield < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 14, 2008 1:19 PM, Brian Kotek < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > I think he is saying that his controllers only interact with
> > > > > services. The
> > > > > > easy rule of thumb for me is: if this was called by Flex instead
> > > > > of my HTML
> > > > > > controller, would it still work? The answer should be "yes". Which
> > > > > means all
> > > > > > logic of any consequence (beyond doing something like a
> > > > > cflocation, which is
> > > > > > specific to the HTML view anyway) should be handled in the model.
>
> > > > > Right, but that can still be in the domain object rather than the
> > > > > service. You just need to expose the API via the service for remote
> > > > > interaction. It doesn't mean all the business logic is in the
> > > > > *service* which is at the heart of Baz's question, I believe.
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
