[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       myfaces-dev
Subject:    Re: spring conversation start (@manfred)
From:       Werner Punz <werpu () gmx ! at>
Date:       2006-12-20 0:04:23
Message-ID: em9umc$tfd$1 () sea ! gmane ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Craig McClanahan schrieb:
> 
> One of the architectural approaches that MyFaces developers seem to do 
> pretty often, even when they don't have to, is think of everything as 
> needing a component.  To me, this involves the person building the view 
> in decisions that really belong to the person working on the business 
> logic.  Yes, it's often the same person, but where is the separation of 
> concerns?
> 
That was indeed the concerns of the original scope tag
(I am using it currently btw. it is excellent work)
the original intent was to have a viable replacement for savestate
which would allow quick and dirty scoping with a
a visual/tag approach.

Mario did this approach and he solved it in an excellent way
and yes, there is a break in separation of concerns and it was
intended by design to ease the development of small applications,

you basically push the scope control and parts of the transaction 
handling into the visual part.

But the idea was to have a tag like way for those things, and if you
need it differently (which many apps do but many small ones dont)
have other frameworks deal with it.

Now Mario, now he is moving into the Spring domain with his stuff, seems
to be covering, let other frameworks do the scope control approach,
as well.

Btw. The scope tag of Mario is really excellent you should give it a 
try, but I agree, separation of concerns is not really there and cannot 
be by design principle, but there are other frameworks and solutions
to deal with this.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]