Jon,
I mearly stand in the shadows of our Advanced Architecture Team that put
this stuff together. I was mearly a kibutzer on fringes of this team.
But I'll take some credit by association. What the heck!
-Chris.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Tirs�n [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 11:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 'local' entity beans vs dependent objects
>
> You're definitely on you way to something, Marcus.
>
> I strongly recommend reading the following paper:
> http://www.gemstone.com/javasuccess/design_wp.html
> (thanks for this one, Chris!)
>
> In my architecture what you're talking about is the
> "Application Layer". (Same terminology as the above
> paper.)
>
> --- Marcus Ahnve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> skrev:
> > > Hmm. Actually, when I wrote the message I meant
> > something even more
> > > decoupled than this.
> >
> > *snip*
> >
> > > The point here is that EJB is an implementation
> > technology and has so
> > > many weird design quirks/flaws that its
> > requirements should not make it
> > > into your domain model.
> >
> > IMHO it is a <overused term> component model
> > </overused term> doing a
> > lot of stuff that you can write yourself, but it is
> > so nice to have that
> > done by somebody else. However, if there is a new
> > shiny component model
> > doing things twice as fast at half the price next
> > year I for one is not
> > too keen on rewriting the whole thing. Therefor I
> > like the idea of
> > keeping the business model separated from the
> > component model.
> >
> > > Also, the common practice of somehow mystically
> > > grouping domain objects together under, say, an
> > entity bean facade is
> > > not (a) easy or (b) practical in most cases (at
> > least IMHO). So all I'm
> > > saying is: what if you did it the other way? What
> > if you stick an
> > > entity bean under a regular java object "facade"
> > (I use quotes because
> > > it's not really a true Facade in the Design
> > Patterns sense)?
> >
> > Adapter maybe? But if they would not only change the
> > interface, they
> > would also have a bit of implementation maybe
> > steering calls to
> > different beans.
> >
> > > And as
> > > long as you're doing that, why not shove session
> > beans under regular
> > > java object facades as well?
> >
> > Sure, as far as I see that means adding an adapter
> > at all client levels
> > - but that is just like most people do for isolating
> > the database for
> > example.
> >
> > > Hope this clarifies my (tentative!) thinking a
> > bit.
> >
> > Yep, I think I like it.
> >
> > /Marcus
> >
> > Marcus Ahnve
> > Sun Java Center
> > Sweden
> >
> >
> ==========================================================================
> =
> > 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".
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.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".
