Hi, Digging into AppFuse (2.0.2, modular struts, full-source).
In this thread Matt seems to be saying there's no value going forward using UniversalManager over GenericManager. > I also > believe generics are the better path, but left the old ones in during > the initial migration in case people liked them. My guess is that no > one uses Universal* classes and the choice just causes confusion. > http://www.nabble.com/UserManager-and-UserDao-Inheritance-Interface-Mismatch-td19403168s2369.html#a19403168 Seems like using GenericManager would require a particular instance of it or its subclass to be built around a single Dao instance (GenericDao or a subclass of it) in order for it to work properly for all use cases. In the core code I'm not seeing a case where there are multiple daos injected into a Manager but it seems like that would be a common use case as the manager methods are the level at which transactions are demarkated (if that's a word). For instance I might want to make a transaction-based update to data in 2 separate tables via 2 separate daos. I might not be able to rely on cascading by passing a particular model object into a particular Dao. So I guess this is more of a general question on what the architectural design decision is/was here. Am I misunderstanding how GenericManager works, and/or am I off-base to expect to be able to work with multiple DAO's from a single manager method? TIA, Rob -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/UniversalManager-vs-GenericManager-tp20668077s2369p20668077.html Sent from the AppFuse - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
