Hi Roland, A value object with a local interface is not a good idea. In the future is you distributed (clustered or put your EJB and Servlet containers on different VM) you may run into problems.
Your value object should have simple getters and setters; to mirror CMR a getter may return an associated value object (or list of value objetcs). The value object should be parsed to a stateless session bean that talks to your entity beans. You should not really be talking to entity beans directly from your value object. Jon Ridgway -----Original Message----- From: Roland Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 24 July 2002 17:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: HELP: Value objects w/ CMR fields to Action Forms Hello, Does anyone have a best practice/pattern for mapping value objects which contain CMP 2.0 cmr field relationships to an action form. Previously we were using our own relationship framework which required us to only have simple accessors for relationships in our value objects. Now these value objects contain local interfaces. Previously we used a mapping tool which did all of our mappings for us, however, I don't think this will do the job any longer. Any advice would be appreciated. I think we may be missing something. ? Thanks, RC The contents of this email are intended only for the named addressees and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If received in error please contact UPCO on +44 (0) 113 201 0600 and then delete the entire e-mail from your system. Unauthorised review, distribution, disclosure or other use of this information could constitute a breach of confidence. Your co-operation in this matter is greatly appreciated. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
