Why is spring-orm version 3.0.1.RELEASE and not 3.0.3.RELEASE? Why
not just uset a {spring.version} property in your POM so that it all
stays in synch?
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Kent Tong k...@cpttm.org.mo wrote:
Hi,
I've written a tutorial on this topic. You may check it out at
Why do you have page - service - dao? Why not just talk directly to
the DAO for the getAll() method. This level of indirection just
causes more code (and confusion) in your simple example. Is this just
a best practice that you've devised? I've never really understood
folks' aversion to talking
Hi James,
Why is spring-orm version 3.0.1.RELEASE and not 3.0.3.RELEASE? Why
not just uset a {spring.version} property in your POM so that it all
stays in synch?
Thanks for your good advice. I've updated the tutorial.
Why do you have page - service - dao? Why not just talk directly to
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Kent Tong k...@cpttm.org.mo wrote:
I agree that if the service is simply delegating to the DAO without
adding anything, then it is probably be a good idea to merge them.
However, this sample application is meant to demonstrate how to do
it in a general case
The best reason for me to keep a service/business layer talking to the DAO is
to provide a clean transactional boundary. Then, all I have to do is add a
Spring @Transactional annotation to the method and I'm fully atomic.
If my view logic is calling a half dozen DAO methods to effect an
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Brian Topping brian.topp...@gmail.com wrote:
The best reason for me to keep a service/business layer talking to the DAO is
to provide a clean transactional boundary. Then, all I have to do is add a
Spring @Transactional annotation to the method and I'm fully
Thats ok. I never understood folks who dont use layers.
-Original Message-
From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:07 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Getting started with Scala
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Tim L Casey tca...@cataphora.com wrote:
That’s ok. I never understood folks who don’t use layers.
I do use layers, when it makes sense. It's just a matter of taste, I
guess. Some folks like to stick with their paradigm no matter what.
I guess I've just
that choice.
-Original Message-
From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 9:12 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org; tim.ca...@cataphora.com
Subject: Re: Getting started with Scala, Spring, Hibernate Wicket
On Jun 19, 2010, at 12:05 PM, James Carman wrote:
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Brian Topping brian.topp...@gmail.com
wrote:
The best reason for me to keep a service/business layer talking to the DAO
is to provide a clean transactional boundary. Then, all I have to do is add
a
The latest and greatest in the domain-driven world would be CQRS where
the UI code needs two types of dependencies: the command bus and a
repository. No more need of a 'services' layer.
I adore CQRS because it provides a simple and clear view of what code to
put where. Though the amount of
11 matches
Mail list logo
