On 12/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 out of curiousity, where did they add "it"? I don't see any reference to updateActionListener in 1.2. By the way, is this similar to (or identical to) your idea for a preupdate() method in Shale's ViewController (SHALE-338)? If so, I still like the idea ... just need to see the follow through :-). Craig 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
