Whether the dependent objects are cardinality 1 to 1 or 1 to *, they should
still not be beans if they are owned by the higher level bean.
This is of course an opinion. The essential issue is whether we treat entity
beans as a data access mechanism or a coarse grained component. There is
some stuff brewing on wiki web on this and Dave Buirhead recently posted on
this list...
-Chirs.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david sims [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 8:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: a list of dependent objects
>
> I recall the discussions about dependent objects within EJBeans. The
> consensus
> basically was, "don't make dependent objects entity beans."
>
> But what if you have a list of dependent objects?
>
> Like, for example, an Employee has quarterly reviews from his manager. You
> could
> say the quarterly review is a dependent object. But, the Employee is
> building
> up a long list of quarterly review objects.
>
> Do you give up, use bean-managed persistence on Employee, and be done with
> it?
>
> Or do you keep Employee in container-managed persistence land by making
> QuarterlyReview itself a container-managed bean?
>
> regards,
> david
>
> --
> David Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sims Computing, Inc. www.simscomputing.com
>
> ==========================================================================
> =
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the
> body
> of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
