Zhang,
It depends on what you want.
Using session facade gives your architecture forward compatibility towards
EJB technologies and maybe new technologies that might come in ...
the overhead of using this pattern isn´t that important and you will have a
clearer separation of areas...
Regards
is: is your Facade the same as my Session Facade?
> I am reading
>
http://java.sun.com/blueprints/corej2eepatterns/Patterns/SessionFacade.html,
> and I think Session Facade itself should be a session EJB, right?
>
It really doesn't have to be. The link you sent lists down three ad
07/2004 04:45 PM
Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
To: "'Struts Users Mailing List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: [OT] Session facade
Classification:
yes it should be a SessionEJB
however, if you
Demo
and
https://strutsejb.dev.java.net/
i guess... now you have stuff...
:-)
cheers,
PS: J2EE-Patterns-Book is great!
Matthias
> However, before the discussion goes far from what I initially
> wanted, let me ask you this: is your Facade the same as my
> Session Facade? I a
Thanks all. I especially like " Firstly, just in case that EJBs will be introduced in
subsequent phases."
However, before the discussion goes far from what I initially wanted, let me ask you
this: is your Facade the same as my Session Facade?
I am reading
http://java.sun.com/
t; Thanks Bill.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Siggelkow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: news <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 07/07/2004 04:10 PM
> Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
>
>
>
>
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
;
07/07/2004 04:10 PM
Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: [OT] Session facade
Classification:
Glenn, I was with you until the part about the "return code" ... I think
it would be bett
"Struts Users Mailing List"
To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Session facade
Classification:
I would assert you don't need the Session Facade as one of the advantages
of the Session Facade is
;plug-in" interface implementations.
http://www.springframework.org/
robert
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:42 PM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: RE: Session facade
>
>
>
ist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:RE: Session facade
Classification:
I would assert you don't need the Session Facade as one of the advantages
of the Session Facade is it's ability to abstract the low level operations
of the Session EJBs from upper lay
It will make sense. You'd let the j2ee container take
care of managing dao manager instances and you'll get
transaction support (if you need it). Plus, if you
decide to move your persistence layer to another
server it will be nicely packaged within the .ear that
contains your ejb sess
I would assert you don't need the Session Facade as one of the advantages of the
Session Facade is it's ability to abstract the low level operations of the Session
EJBs from upper layers of your architecture. You could probably have your actions
talking to a Business Delegate layer o
Maybe.
"Zhang, Larry \(L.\)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
07/07/2004 02:58 PM
Please respond to
"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
"Struts Users Mailing
List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
Subject
Session facade
It
It seems session facade design pattern is becoming ubiquitous. My question is that
if we are not going to use EJB(but we do have DAO-data access object), does it still
make sense to use session facade?
Thanks.
-
To
14 matches
Mail list logo
