On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In the first example we're saying "Hey, take this form and populate >> yourself with these values". > > Yes I would say that it is. There's no reason ask another object (the > OrderService) to populate the Order object when you can just tell the Order > object to populate itself.
Just to clarify, since I think I was the one advocating using a service here (I've certainly advocated it in discussions with folks this last week or so)... If the populate() method is generic - it iterates over the collection and calls matching setters - then it is not specific to a bean and rather than have an artificial base class to contain such common code (inheritance should not generally be used for sharing implementation details), it is easier to put that common non-type-specific code in a service. One copy of the code. Mach-II and Model-Glue take this approach by making such a method available as part of the framework since it's a common task. Also, since this operation tends to happen when populating beans from forms primarily, it feels "wrong" to me to have this in a bean - I'd be more comfortable with it being in the controller layer somewhere (again, as Mach-II and Model-Glue have it). Of course, there's no black and white "right" or "wrong" ways here and there are tradeoffs in both approaches. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
