Well, sometimes somethings work well, even the "design" is not that best. Regard the separation, I think that is true for the "updateActionListener" as well. I love that guy, Trinidad has a similar and now the spec folks saw what's useful und added it
Just my $0.02 -M On 12/20/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Craig McClanahan schrieb: > > One of the architectural approaches that MyFaces developers seem to do > pretty often, even when they don't have to, is think of everything as > needing a component. To me, this involves the person building the view > in decisions that really belong to the person working on the business > logic. Yes, it's often the same person, but where is the separation of > concerns? > That was indeed the concerns of the original scope tag (I am using it currently btw. it is excellent work) the original intent was to have a viable replacement for savestate which would allow quick and dirty scoping with a a visual/tag approach. Mario did this approach and he solved it in an excellent way and yes, there is a break in separation of concerns and it was intended by design to ease the development of small applications, you basically push the scope control and parts of the transaction handling into the visual part. But the idea was to have a tag like way for those things, and if you need it differently (which many apps do but many small ones dont) have other frameworks deal with it. Now Mario, now he is moving into the Spring domain with his stuff, seems to be covering, let other frameworks do the scope control approach, as well. Btw. The scope tag of Mario is really excellent you should give it a try, but I agree, separation of concerns is not really there and cannot be by design principle, but there are other frameworks and solutions to deal with this.
-- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
