What about transient data? I was always under the impression that VO’s (or DTO’s or whatever they’re called) were more like throw-away objects: you use them to transfer data to/from a server, but that’s it.
So if I label something as being a VO (e.g. ConversationVO), then I don’t expect to find that class in the “model” classpath because I am not storing data in it. Consequently, I would not expect my view to bind to it. Does that make sense? I guess all I’m asking is: would you label something as being a VO and then bind your view to it? Symantics, I know, but I’m trying to figure out whether I’m the only one who thinks it’s weird :-) From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of claudiu ursica Sent: 06 August 2009 14:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [flexcoders] cairngorm convention: vo or model? Ultimately the data should be in the model, and the view binds to the model. However depending on your needs you could notify the view from the command using responders. Check the UM Cairngorm extensions for this. HTH, Claudiu _____ From: Jorge Maiquez <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2009 3:07:15 PM Subject: [flexcoders] cairngorm convention: vo or model? I have a some doubts about implementing Cairngorm correctly (and I guess MVC in general). I’m trying to decide where to place some of my data storing/transferrin g classes, and I was wondering if anyone has any rules of thumb for this kind of thing. These are the guidelines that I have been following until now: 1) the class only transfers data to/from a server: postfix “VO” and put it in the vo folder 2) the class only stores data for the local application: put it in the model folder 3) the class does both of the above: put it in the model folder (don’t postfix “VO”) I’m working with someone who does (1) even when the class is never sent across the wire. What’s the “right” way to do this? And also: I’ve read somewhere that VO’s should not contain any logic, and that you should be able to initialise all of its properties via the constructor. What do you think? TIA! -Jorge
<<image002.jpg>>
