Though Cairngorm doesn't prevent you from creating rich models, i think it fits better for this kind of crud application with a rather flat model. In fact the model is little more than a cache of serverside objects. User gesture, update cached objects, update view. If i was to implement a rich model, i would let the model handle the backend directly and make the controller a real frontcontroller, which maps usergestures to model method calls. You could still use cairngorm framework, it's just a slight shift of responsibilities. Cheers, Ralf.
On 12/5/06, Lachlan Cotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Alex, One thing I'm looking for is validation that there is a need in some applications to construct an object graph of sorts to describe the model beyond an array of records to be CRUDed. Surely I'm not alone here? If that's the case, is there a best practice for going from value objects delivered from a service, to first class, intelligent model citizens in the domain? One thing I've found confusing about the Cairngorm approach is that models and value objects seem to be synonymous. You thoughts? Cheers, Lach On 05/12/2006, at 11:13 PM, Alex Uhlmann wrote: there many ways to use Cairngorm. I agree with you completly, it's of vital importance to refactor the right functionality from both, views and commands into model objects that mean something to your use case. Then, this functionality can also be easier unit tested. … However how your model is going to look like depends on your specific needs. Cairngorm doesn't tell you how to design your custom model or your custom view. It's the infractucture around that. My blog entries around that, which Douglas pointed out, have the indent to show one possible route to go towards this direction. Nevertheless, it's difficult to show that in examples, since there's a tradeoff in completeness and complexity vs. easy to understand examples ....and most importantly...time. ;)
-- Ralf Bokelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Flex & Flash Consultant based in Cologne/Germany
