Andreas Leitner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 10:12:09AM -0400, David Ward wrote: > > >>Let me know what you end up doing, as I'm interested in better and >>better designs. Sorry about the typos - it wasn't a copy/paste so it >>was bound to be imperfect. > > > I will! > > Btw, I have one more question regarding trees. Now I have implemented the tree as >you suggested, > with the finder to tell about the children. > > Is it somehow possible to send the complete hirachy over to the user (in form of the >top level value object)? > Because with the current design, I can give the user the top level node, for the >children he has to contact the server again (invoking indirectly the finder method). >For the client to put the tree ie into a swing tree view, he needs to convert the >data once again - something which he shouldn't have to do - that's what the value >objects are there for (IMO). > > any ideas, > Andreas
-- Yeah, in my mind that's the biggest downfall of the parent-only-relation/finder-for-children design. I haven't addressed it in my project yet - but I do have a plan. I'm probably going to sub-class the xdoclet-generated VO's with one that simply adds the children heirarchy. I will populate it in the stateless session bean so the client only has to make one call for all of it to the server. The thing that still stinks about it is it will still end up being several database calls. At least it will be done in the scope of a single Transaction, though. *Please* let me know if you figure out something better. Thanks, David ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
