On Jan 7, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Henry Ho wrote: > Yes, I get that, but with the DAO/Service/Bean approach, it seems like I have > more layers needed to be changed. I'm just exploring if there're any other > lighter/more flexible approach to this.
I don't think there is anything wrong with having a DAO, Service and Bean, but there shouldn't be any real duplication of metadata between them. There should be a single authoritative source of any piece of data in your app. So you need to pick one place to tell your system what properties a given object has. IMO, if you need to edit more than one thing when you add a property to an object, you're doing it wrong. I always have a single place with metadata describing my objects (either putting it into the object and using instantiation and reflection or having a metadata bean that I load into all of the objects relating to a given business object) and use that to control data access, the object itself and anything in the service class that needs to know about the business object. Where I can, I also use that representation to generate my DB schema if I have one (or to generate migrations) so I'm keeping things nice and DRY. Best Wishes, Peter -- 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.
