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 <
http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/agoncal>
| LinkedIn <
http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris
JUG<http://www.parisjug.org/>
| Devoxx France <
http://www.devoxx.fr/>