The code on the article works now.. I'm not sure I follow why they are creating an extra bean definition for each finder in your current project. AFAICT, all one needs to do is create an interface like UserDAO that extends the GenericDAO interface and all the finder API's are declared in the UserDAO. The only thing to go along with adding a new finder is to add the declaration to the interface and add a named query with its name that matches the finder in the UserDAO interface. The "fancy bean" declaration for the UserDAO needs to be done only once and it ties whatever finders are declared in the UserDAO interface with named queries based on reflection.
Again, I'm not sold on this yet as it might just be something that seems cool but adds less value at the cost of loss in clarity. This is how I now feel about the email sending aspects.. it seemed like a good idea then but as my project grew larger, it got quite confusing for new members (and the author too) and also got harder to track.. then I asked myself what was so wrong with having the email sending code along side the other business logic. There may be some purists that speak up :) but I really didn't see any practical value is moving the email sending code into an aspect for my project. On 3/13/07, Matt Raible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The reason I didn't advocate incorporating them was because when I tried the code from the IBM article (almost a year ago), it didn't work. If you can get them to work, and it's not too confusing to the end users, we'll add them. The project I'm currently working on uses them and it seems somewhat difficult to understand - they create an Interface and a bean definition each time they need a finder. I'm fine with creating an interface, but creating a 5-line bean definition to go with it seems cumbersome and can quicky get out of hand IMO. Matt On 3/13/07, Sanjiv Jivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm a bit late on catching up with this but I see a note stating that finder > introductions are not being incorporated : > http://issues.appfuse.org/browse/APF-424 > > I thought that finder introductions were pretty cool were one could just > have a named query and the finder introduction ties this up with the > implementation of the finder of the same name. The spring config for this > looks fancy but is really just something to get used to like the transaction > proxy stuff. Maybe its just one of those things that seem more useful / > convenient than they really are.. but I think I might give it a whirl and > see how helpful it is. > > Anyone else have comments or experience with this? > > Thanks, > Sanjiv > > -- http://raibledesigns.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
