> I'm currently applying the Cairngorm architecture to a > large-scale Flex project with a J2EE midtier. The Computer > Scientist in me has been burning me with the following > performance question: > > If we advocate passing entire ValueObject entities across the > wire and vice-versa instead of passing only the nessasary > attributes to the midtier. The ValueObjects could potentially > be huge data entities that would hinder performance bandwidth > correct? I assuming these questions have been addressed at > the conceptual level with the inception of the pattern > itself. Any insight?
Cairngorm doesn't really solve or create any problems here; it's down to the application developer to make decisions about what should and shoudn't be getting passed down the wire. The VO pattern, as I'm sure you're aware, is often referred to as the Data Transfer Object (DTO) pattern; it's a class that can transfer data objects over the wire. So don't pass more data back and forth over the wire than you need, and have value objects/transfer objects that can be payloads for that data. These are the kind of develop-time decision a technical architect or developer has to make when building RIAs, irrespective of whether they are using Cairngorm or not. What lives server-side, what lives client-side, and is the benefit of local/server processing offset by the data transfer requirements. Best, Steven -- Steven Webster Practice Director (Rich Internet Applications) Adobe Consulting Westpoint, 4 Redheughs Rigg, South Gyle, Edinburgh, EH12 9DQ, UK p: +44 (0) 131 338 6108 m: +44 (0) 7917 428 947 -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
