> What do you mean by "part of the model" I just sent a post where I (hopefully) explained what I mean by "part of the model".
> If so, why does that matter? This goes back to my "definition" of VO: objects that are sent across the wire. So my reasoning was that if you send something across the wire and it's not "part of the model", then it should be in the vo package. Additionally, I reasoned (perhaps incorrectly) that anything that is not sent down the wire should not get the name VO and should reside in the model package, not the vo package. For me, the vo package is only for stuff that gets sent down the wire. > Cairngorm has a few things backwards Tell me about it.. I could live with backwards if it was well documented though, which it's not, which is doing my head in :-) Kind regards, -Jorge -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Muzak Sent: 06 August 2009 21:17 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [flexcoders] cairngorm convention: vo or model? > What if you have a class that is both a vo and a part of the model (the > situation I mentioned in my original post)? > Should you clone the vo and put it in the model, as Claudiu mentioned? What do you mean by "part of the model"; it is used by the model? If so, why does that matter? VO's should be in the "vo" package, nowhere else. > I followed the structure used by David Tucker Well, Cairngorm has a few things backwards (IMO), like CairngormEvent and CairngormEventDispatcher both being in the "control" package. Both should be in an "events" package, just like the standard Flex Event and EventDispatcher classes are. flash.events.Event flash.events.EventDispatcher And their use of "ModelLocator" is just... eeew. It's not a "locator", it's just a Model. My guess is they looked at ARP a bit too much, but missed the point of how it is actually used :) regards, Muzak ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jorge Maiquez" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 6:31 PM Subject: RE: [flexcoders] cairngorm convention: vo or model? @Claudiu > in you model? It won't even be in you project structure. it will > be from your libs where the swc's reside... You can clone vo's > into model classes but it seems such a waste to me ... Point taken. @Jake > commands are in commands, vo’s should all be in vo So by that token, models should be in models, right? What if you have a class that is both a vo and a part of the model (the situation I mentioned in my original post)? Should you clone the vo and put it in the model, as Claudiu mentioned? > default Cairngorm structure has commands and events at the same > level as control, not inside of control I followed the structure used by David Tucker: http://www.davidtucker.net/2007/10/29/cairngorm-part-3/ ------------------------------------ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Alternative FAQ location: https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847 Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
