Is that controllable? What if I have complex object models referenced from wicket UI components that I don't want (can't reasonably with Java's non optimal serialization) serialized?
If we're serializing for offline storage aren't we going to require the underlying model objects to get serialized as well? > -----Original Message----- > serialization in the context when you need to serialize the object - > eg wicket serializes its pages for offline storage, etc. > > -igor > > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Chris Colman > <chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com> wrote: > > Another extremely light weight IoC with ORM wrapping (JDO and Hibernate) > > is exPOJO at http://www.expojo.com > > > > No need for old fashioned DAOs etc., just POJOs being persisted > > transparently the way they should be. > > > > In terms of serialization: > > > > Is that for the purpose of scaling in a cluster environment? I vote for > > 'session affinity' every time - it's almost necessary when you have > > anything more sophisticated than an anemic domain model. Do you really > > want to be shifting complex object models from server to server via > > serialization? > > > > If it's not for a cluster environment but for a single server to allow > > stale sessions to be swapped out then let the garbage collection clean > > out the ORM's object cache instead. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:igor.vaynb...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 3:38 AM > >> To: users@wicket.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Anemic domain model and are @SpringBean's compatible with > > the > >> solution in "Spring 2.0 vs. the Anemic Domain Model"? > >> > >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Kent Larsson > > <kent.lars...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Nice! I think Salve looks great! And it solves more than this > > problem, > >> > I like the design by contract module too as it allows me to validate > >> > parameters in a bit more declarative way. > >> > > >> > Do you think Salve is ready to be used in production? I'm a bit > >> > concerned by "Although already usable, Salve is still in its > > infancy. > >> > Not all features have been implemented and not all problems worked > >> > out.". I only see one open issue and it doesn't seem too major for > > me > >> > to pick it up. > >> > >> we have been using it in production for a while without any problems. > >> i just need to find the time to update the website text :) > >> > >> > If I'm not mistaken Salve may be used (for lots of things, but one > > is) > >> > to solve serialization issues with Spring beans in Wicket > > components? > >> > But isn't that the same issue that the Wicket IOC and it's > > @SpringBean > >> > annotation solves? > >> > >> wicket ioc can only take it so far. because it has to generate a proxy > >> there are limitations to what classes can be proxies - eg no final > >> methods, default constructor, etc. salve doesnt use a proxy so it > >> doesnt have any problems. > >> > >> although small, wicket ioc does have an overhead of having to > >> serialize the proxy with the componnet. since salve removes the field > >> it has no such overhead, this is more important when you are returning > >> large resultsets of entities that use dependencies. > >> > >> > If that's the case: Could I use Spring to inject my entities with > >> > DAO's for now, and use the @SpringBean annotation on those as well > > in > >> > my Wicket components (In those cases I have entities as class vars)? > >> > And the @SpringBean will solve the serialization issue? > >> > >> you can use whatever works for you. salve is an alternative :) > >> > >> > By just looking at Salve a bit it seems I could migrate to Salve in > >> > two steps that way. And it might be a pretty smooth path to take? It > >> > would mean that I inject 1000 entities for no good reason. But if I > >> > see a performance problem in doing so I could just migrate to Salve? > >> > By smooth path I mean that I would have access to my DAO's in my > >> > entities and would essentially only change the dependency > > annotations > >> > and setup Salve. > >> > >> as long as you do not use spring-specific injection rules you should > >> be fine. salve uses lookup by type primarily, but also does have > >> @SpringBeanId that can be used as a qualifier. > >> > >> > >> > Of course, if Salve is production ready. Then could I throw out > > Wicket > >> > IOC and the @SpringBean annotation and use Salve instead to solve > >> > serialization issues? In this case I would use Salve for my > >> > presentation/Wicket -layer as well as dependency injection in my > >> > entities and Spring as I already do for my service/business -layer > > and > >> > my persistence/DTO -layer. Or would it be nicer to have Salve handle > >> > dependencies in the last two layers as well? > >> > >> we use salve to inject across all layers. it gives you a consistent > >> approach to use and mock in unit tests. we have a spring context that > >> contains true services - eg session factory, mail sender, credit card > >> processor, etc. all of our domain model then uses salve to inject > >> these wherever needed. > >> > >> -igor > >> > >> > A lot of questions and text. Thanks for reading this far! :-) > >> > > >> > Best regards, Kent > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Igor Vaynberg > > <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> this is why i built salve.googlecode.com > >> >> > >> >> you can easily hook it into spring and have all your objects (doman > >> >> objects or wicket components) injected via @Dependency without > >> >> worrying about serialization issues or eager injection - eg if you > >> >> load a result set of 1000 hibernate entities that need injection > > you > >> >> dont want all those injected for no reason. > >> >> > >> >> -igor > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Kent Larsson > > <kent.lars...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >>> Hi, > >> >>> > >> >>> Our current architecture: > >> >>> --- > >> >>> > >> >>> We're currently using a 3-tier architecture (presentation, > >> >>> service/business and persistence) consisting of Wicket (+ a little > >> >>> Spring), Spring and Spring + Hibernate: > >> >>> > >> >>> Wicket: > >> >>> > >> >>> Does presentation, we're not inside a transaction / Hibernate > > session > >> >>> so all used fields must be loaded by Spring. We call Spring > > singleton > >> >>> beans and annotate those fields with @SpringBean. > >> >>> > >> >>> Spring: > >> >>> > >> >>> In the service layer we have Spring singleton beans, services, > > which > >> >>> are called from the Wicket layer. We have our transaction / > > Hibernate > >> >>> session boundary at this layer. We call DAO's from this layer. > >> >>> > >> >>> Spring + Hibernate: > >> >>> > >> >>> Our DAO's are Spring singleton beans which performs database > >> >>> operations using HibernateTemplate. > >> >>> > >> >>> And common to all the layers are our entities. We use the @Entity > >> >>> annotation on them (not XML), from the Wicket layer we just use > > the > >> >>> accessor methods making sure that the relevant fields are loaded > > (as > >> >>> we would get an exception if they were Lazy and not yet loaded). > > Our > >> >>> entities are stupid, they lack logic and are used mostly like a > > struct > >> >>> in C/C++. > >> >>> > >> >>> I think the general pattern is pretty common for Java EE and > > Spring > >> >>> based web applications (feel free to disagree!). Yet it's > > classified > >> >>> as an anti-pattern by Martin Fowler as we are using mostly > > procedural > >> >>> programming and have an anemic domain model ( > >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemic_Domain_Model ). > >> >>> > >> >>> What I would like: > >> >>> --- > >> >>> > >> >>> I would like to use a more OOP approach and have logic in our > > current > >> >>> entities, creating a rich domain model. For that to work in all > > cases > >> >>> they need to be able to load and save data. I would still use a > > Spring > >> >>> singleton bean's for different services. But instead of changing > > the > >> >>> entities like structs they would be rich objects capable of > > chaning > >> >>> themself's and other objects. > >> >>> > >> >>> I found this article very interesting: > >> >>> http://www.nofluffjuststuff.com/blog_detail.jsp?rssItemId=96860 > >> >>> > >> >>> But how would something like that work with Wicket? Could I just > > use > >> >>> @SpringBean like I'm currently doing but use it on both "entities" > > and > >> >>> Spring singleton services? > >> >>> > >> >>> For me this has a purely practical benefit, as I could use some > >> >>> inheritance in the domain object model to create different > > variations > >> >>> of logic and not just data. Wicket feels quite agile and nice to > > work > >> >>> with, but I still feel that the current architecture is a bit > > stale > >> >>> and seldom supports elegant OO solutions (that said, of course > > things > >> >>> can still be solved elegantly, I just think it would be easier if > > I > >> >>> could do it in a more OO oriented way). > >> >>> > >> >>> Comments? What are the pros and cons of this kind of architecture? > >> >>> > >> >>> All comments are greatly appreciated! > >> >>> > >> >>> Best regards, Kent > >> >>> > >> >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > >> > > >> > > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > >> > >> > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.44/2140 - Release Date: > > 05/28/09 > >> 18:09:00 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.44/2140 - Release Date: 05/28/09 > 18:09:00 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
