On Tue, July 12, 2005 1:08 pm, Larry Meadors said: > I still do not see why putting your VO on your action form is a bad thing. > > 1) It gives you a super-easy way to map strings (bean.propName)
I guess I'm not clear on this... are you talking about nesting the VO in the ActionForm, or are you talking about having the properties that would otherwise be in the VO be in the ActionForm? > 2) It gives you an easy way to perform string->type conversions How does it make it any easier than if they are separate objects? > 3) It does not couple your VO to your form Again, not clear on this... whether the VO is nested in the form or the form just contains the VO properties, how is that not coupled? > 4) While it does couple your form to your VO, who cares? Isn't this directly contradicting #3? :) Generally-speaking, any time someone says "who cares" about an architectural decision, I've found that usually means they understand what they are doing might not be a good decision long-term, but go with it anyway because its easier short-term. And I've done it myself too, so I don't say this from a position of superiority or anything. It's the long-term that will bite you, not the short-term, so its more important to make decisions that will seem right a year down the road, to the extent that is ever possible in this field, IMO. > 5) When your Action gets the form, it also has the VO, with strongly > typed and named values ready to go to the business tier. How does it already have these values? Could you explain your approach a bit more? Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
