Yes, Result is a generic CFC that I return from service calls where the
controller needs to know what happened (which is about all of the time). It
seems to work pretty well and I haven't had any issues with it yet. I inject
a ResultFactory into my services and the service just gets a new one and
populates it based on what happens.
On Jan 15, 2008 3:16 PM, Baz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is exactly where I wanted the conversation to go!
>
> So Peter - if you did have a flex app, and you wanted to save a user what
> would you do? At minimum you would have to pass in a struct of user values
> to some webservice - but then what? Would you validate in that method? Or
> would you have your flex controller first call a validate() webservice
> method, then depending on the results the save() webservice method?
>
> Brian I see you handle the inherent problem by having a custom RESULT
> structure that you return - I understand why you do this - cuz I do it too -
> but doesn't it kinda suck? When do you stop using it? At one point I was
> thinking that I should use it as a return for any service function. The
> object would have properties like: Status, MessageCode, Payload. This would
> let me handle almost any cases and keep a standard interface to interact
> with.
>
> Baz
>
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2008 11:15 AM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > I'll disagree with you here. The calling code has to know three things:
> >
> > - How to pass information to the service in the format it wants
> > - How to tell whether the save succeeded
> > - How to pass any error messages in a way the display will want to
> > see them (actually, it'll probably just be a conduit for the
> > information, so
> > it is more likely the view will have to know this).
> >
> >
> > It needs to know how to pass well formed data to the service otherwise
> > the save won't work. It needs to tell whether the save succeeded as
> > otherwise it won't be able to make the controller decision to say whether to
> > cflocation to another screen or to redisplay the form (or whatever approach
> > you're using), and it needs to pass the errors along in a way the view can
> > understand as otherwise the view won't be able to display the correct error
> > messages.
> >
> > So, whether you make it:
> > If UserService.isValid()
> > UserService.save();
> > location("UserList");
> > Else
> > Display Form
> >
> > OR
> >
> > Success = UserService.Save()
> > If Success
> > location("UserList")
> > Else
> > DisplayForm
> >
> > (o rmore likely, a variant where "Success" is really ErrorCollection and
> > you test whether ErrorCollection has any members, or is ErrorBean and test
> > whether ErrorBean.hasErrors())
> >
> > In any of these cases you are performing both a command and a query. The
> > command is to save the data and the query is whether it was saved
> > successfully. Nothing wrong with turning that into a single mixed method
> > call (some purists might say you should keep commands and queries separated,
> > but I'm not that picky), but it isn't reducing the amount of information
> > required or the knowledge of the API. You're just doing the command and the
> > query in a single line so it isn't making the controller any dumber – just
> > more concise.
> >
> > Best Wishes,
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/15/08 12:56 PM, "Brian Kotek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 15, 2008 11:57 AM, Adam Haskell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm much more comfortable with doing 2 calls in my service,
> > model.validate(); model.save(), instead of Model.save() and have the
> > save do the validation. Doing model.save makes my service not much more
> > a facade which isn't what I want. Additionally in our environment we have
> > multiple validaters, some of which should not, in my opinion, be part of the
> > domain's concern. An example of this would be Enterprise vs domain specific
> > validation. Something like name is 35 characters and does not have cross sit
> > scripting is Enterprise concerns and part of the validation across all
> > applications irregardless of domain. Where as address must be in the US is
> > domain specific to Contest entries. The converse is true too though if you
> > put too much in the service layer your domain model becomes anemic.
> >
> >
> > See, I disagree here. I don't think it should be the job of the calling
> > code to know that this is a two step process. I would call
> > myService.save(someData) and the validation would happen inside the
> > model. If you have some higher-level validation that would take place
> > outside of the actual business object, I would still do that in the service;
> > that is its job. I would do that validation inside the service, or more
> > probably I would build it into the Validators, which means the Validator
> > might internally be leveraging several specific Validators to do it's job.
> > So I might do
> >
> > myService.save(userData);
> >
> > and inside the service I might do:
> >
> > user = createUser(userData);
> > result = createResult();
> > if (user.isValid()) {
> > result.setSuccess(true);
> > }
> > else {
> > result.addErrorMessages (user.getErrorMessages());
> > result.setOriginalData(userData);
> > }
> > return result;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Adam Haskell
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 15, 2008 8:31 AM, Alan Livie < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
