Chris Raber wrote:
> The only reservation I have on this is that I think of EB's at the moment as
> coarse grained facades to the objects they encapsulate (e.g. the component
> is the Order not all the stuff inside the Order). I don't care for EB's all
> over the show in the domain model because of the mixing of life cycle and
> container hooks with pure domain objects. It seems the RDBMS just won't stay
> out of our domain model. Shame.
>
> I also like the idea that my domain objects might stand independent of EB's,
> and could be used in other contexts.
Another way to think of the whole domain-object-to-EJB problem is
backwards. What if your domain objects wrap your entity beans where
appropriate and do not where not appropriate?
That is, the Party Line is to wrap your dependent objects behind an
entity bean facade. What if instead you wrap your entity beans behind a
regular java object facade? Then you can decide whether the
"implementation" of a given domain object should delegate out to a
backing entity bean or not.
I'm sure there are flaws but this makes more sense, I think.
Alternative viewpoints encouraged.
Cheers,
Laird
===========================================================================
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".
