But that won't work if you call it from Flex, that's the point. Flex can't
call a transient "User" object. It has no idea that such a thing exists. It
can only talk to a service layer object (via a remote proxy).
If you work this through as a thought experiment you'll see it is true. The
same thing would apply to a web service call. The web service can't call
your Order object.
On Jan 15, 2008 11:26 AM, Phillip Senn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the spouse's lawyer (Controller) is simply relaying the information
> from the other party (Model).
>
> It's the spouse (model) that determines whether something is valid.
>
>
>
> If (I keep the house)
>
> {
>
> She gets the dogs.
>
> }
>
> Else
>
> {
>
> Invalid transaction.
>
> };
>
>
>
> The transaction is validated whether it was presented from a ColdFusion
> controller (the lawyer), a .net program or run as an ad-hoc in Management
> Studio.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
> Behalf Of *Adam Haskell
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:48 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [CFCDEV] Re: Do you VALIDATE in the SAVE method or keep 'em
> separate?
>
>
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
