Re: [forge-dev] Several architectural styles in Forge (was Wondering about coding convention)

From: "Antonio Goncalves" <antonio.mailing(a)gmail.com&gt; To: "forge-dev List" <forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 2:09:41 PM Subject: [forge-dev] Several architectural styles in Forge (was Wondering about coding convention) 2013/10/21 Vineet Reynolds Pereira < vpereira(a)redhat.com > IMHO we should not be putting persistence concerns in either the JSF beans or the REST resources. They should go into a service or a repository or whatever data access pattern is suitable for the context. This is where we lack any standardization at the moment, and it would be better to not limit this exercise to improving the conventions alone, but also the architecture. Vineet, this is the topic I'm writing about at the moment. To be honest, I quite like to have persistent concerns in JSF beans and REST for certain projects... but not all, and that's where I thing Forge should give some choices. What I'm writing is about having 3 different architectural styles that could be resume like this (using CLI) : Current (generates JSF/REST from entities) : jsf-scaffold-from-entity rest-scaffold-from-entity EJB Centric (add a service layer to deal with persistence) : ejb-scaffold-from-entity jsf-scaffold-from-ejb rest-scaffold-from-ejb REST centric (the JSF backing beans use the REST endpoint, using JAX-RS 2.0 Client API) : rest-scaffold-from-entity jsf-scaffold-from-rest

I will let you know when the post is written, it will be clearer -- Antonio Goncalves Software architect and Java Champion Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev