Firstly, I am not familiar with MVP but have used MVC a lot, and had a quick read over Fowlers stuff.
Personally, I like to approach everything "enterprisey" by using services which can be split into different areas of functionality. The interface can be developed in a separate module so you do not have to have the web bit influence your "enterprisey" bit. U could expose your entire app via different web tier, be it spring mvc, struts, wicket whatever. I guess my point is it should not interfere with your overall design (sure it will effect your final architecture solution) What does enterprise mean anyway ;) Wojciech Biela wrote: > > Hey there, > > Don't shoot, I just got here. And yes I did have look at the archive > to answer my question. > Actually I also read the MEAP Wicket in Action, but I wasn't satisfied > with the answers, so please hear me out and share your opinion. > > The reason I'm here is that I fell in love with Wicket and started a > new project. > > Now, yesterday we were discussing which approach should we take to > developing our application, and we got stuck on the part where didn't > know what to choose MVP or the simple way as shown in the wicket > books. > > For simple cases (and components) the simple approach would probably > suffice, I'm not so sure it will do us good for the complex components > we know we will have to develop. This is because of the mix that we > have here of the view and the controller. E.g. when I have a component > which allows me to choose a value from a list (not a regular > dropdown), and on this list I have a button which enables me to add > another value to the list, the list by the way is pagable and sortable > (as it may get thousands elements long) so we have to query the DB > using ajax. So when I think about such a component in wicket I'm > afraid that it will create a unmaintainable mess because I will have > web components, their behaviours, calls to services, and possibly > anonymous renderers for lists snooping around the domain objects > (retrieved from the model). And it scares me. > > I just want to keep the code it easy to read, comprehend and maintain > > The approach I would normally take when using e.g. Swing would be to > use the MVP pattern or rather the Passive View flavour (by Martin > Fowler), in order to have the presenter wire everything. Problem is > it's a lot of additional code I will not need for the simple cases, > and I don't get the other major benefit of Passive View - testability, > because Wicket components are already unit testable (as opposed to > Swing). On the other hand I would not like to have half of the app > written using one approach and the other half the second. > > How do you approach such scenarios? Maybe I'm just imagining things, > but maybe not, please share > > -- > Wojtek Biela > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/how-do-you-craft-your-enterprise-class-designs--%28MVP-or-plain-Wicket-%29-tp15823041p15824068.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
