p.s.: †I know that's a really polemic opinion. ;)

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Josť Rodolfo Freitas <joserodolfo.freitas@gmail.com> wrote:
What I like most in CDI and Seam3 is that it's very easy to keep things simple and that's something I strongly advocate.†

For me when you have a lot of layers that just delegate calls, something is wrong, and you're probably writing that classes(layers) just to satisfy an unnecessary pattern. If we create a Seam Application Framework like that for Seam3, I'm afraid we're going to fall in that hole. IMHO we should avoid that. JEE6 carries the design by simplicity flag and I think we should support that.

I know that a lot of people want to have a happy and safe way to achieve a simple CRUD. But I think we should encourage them to enjoy the CDI programming model and use layers only when they're needed to be used.

Of course there're still boilerplate code, but I think it's minimal (compared to the JEE generations before), and that's something forge can create without the need to satisfy a "framework". Yes, I admitedly am afraid of that word.



On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen@gmail.com> wrote:
xsalefter,

Thanks, this is valuable feedback and certainly usage patterns to keep in mind when designing the new iteration of these components.

In numerous conversations that I've had with developers familiar with Seam 2, the common theme is that *Home and *Query components are not the ideal design. They lead developers into tight corners exactly in the way you are describing. Thus, we likely won't be following the status quo (though, it's not too big of an effort to port the existing functionality to CDI, so if someone would like to work on that, we won't discourage it).

Instead, I think these components should provide boilerplate functionality, yet be flexible and easily tuned to the needs of the developer. I think you're right in that going back to a generic DAO design might be a more reasonable strategy. I don't think developer expect to code entirely in XML, they simply don't want to type the same boilerplate over and over again.

I like Jason's idea of using named queries. Keep in mind we could read the queries as a suggestion and produce more sophisticated queries in an extension...so we aren't limited to what named queries support today. We've also been considering supporting finder "missing" methods that build a query from the name of the method (or a set of annotations on the method).

Whatever we decide, this should be the framework code that forge uses when generating CRUD applications. Let's make it something that we aren't ashamed of having in our projects ;)

-Dan

p.s. I also recommend renaming SAF, because it's a really confusing term. Something like "entity framework" is far more sensible.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:47, xsalefter <xsalefter@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi all.. I know that I never involved on this mailing-list so much, nor contribute things to the community. But because I have an experience with seam 2 and used seam gen extensively (and thus use seam's EntityQuery and EntityHome a lot) in some project, I have a thought about this.

EntityQuery anda EntityHome is perfect in case you want to creating an simple CRUD application. Well, not as simple as is. I ever involved in a project with 40 more database tables with quite extensive financial transaction, and use an EntityQuery and EntityHome a lot. The main problem with these classes is that, It's hard (well, at least, for me) to make your code consistent.†What I mean by consistent is that, it is confusing to determine whether the classes is a part of your UI layer, or service/domain-model layer. Or where you add new functionality to satisfied a specifics requirement. The study case is maybe like this:

Let say that we have a module named accounting transaction. And we want to create a input transaction page, thus we have a TransactionHome.xhtml backed with TransactionHome.java. Now the problems occurs. Because we want a chart of account list in the TransactionHome.xhtml, where is better place to put the logic to call the chart of account list? In the TransactionHome.java, or ChartOfAccountList.java?†

In the beginning I put it in the ChartOfAccountList.java, and start to realize that seam's EntityList is specialized class to create a page with contains a rich datatable search option, paging, and sorting. It will be strange to the code if try to add non searching/sorting/paging on it. Then I think to back to good-old DAO object, and thinking again about the backing bean: I need to call/inject the DAO in some backing-bean, but where? TransactionHome.java? Well, TransactionHome already have getEntityManager(), so if I put the DAO in the ***Home, it will looks overlapping, and bit odd. Then when I thinking again about the EntityHome, I'm not sure whether I need to treat this class as UI or Service class.†You see, this is simple case study (don't get me start with "The list of Chart Of Account need to aligning with the logged in user's departments and user's role. And make sure that an user with level A have a $xxx limit transaction, where level B have $xxx limit").†

My purpose is not to blame something or rant to something, but instead, give an idea whether is it good enough to leave ***Home and ***Query concept, and back to at least†
Entity-Service-BackingBean-View model? It looks "verbose", I know, but at least we have a "service" layer, which is "centralized" place to write a business logic in our application. We could treat the "service" as just-plain-stateless classes (EJB 3.1 classes or only seam-persistence classes with minimal coupled with the front-end layer), and put the richness of Weld and Seam 3 maybe in the UI and view layer.

Well, I know this is personal view, from me, and my experience. Thus, just ignore if in case this is annoying and not fit with your purpose/target.

Thanks,
xsalefter

The Home idea
https://github.com/seam/seam-example-confbuzz/blob/develop/src/main/java/seam/example/confbuzz/ConferenceInstance.java

The Query idea

The main thing that I would change with the Query class above is to use named queries, thus espousing the generally accepted best practice in default applications. I understand this doesn't fill all the gaps of the older SAF from Seam 2, but I think it works for the majority of cases, and it also helps people understand the best way to do things instead of relying on the magic of SAF from Seam 2 (which I have found to be a major problem in projects and teams I have worked with over the last three years).

I've spoken with Lincoln about this and there are two JIRAs (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/SEAMFORGE-280†and†https://issues.jboss.org/browse/SEAMFORGE-279) to have Forge generate this via the JPA plugin or perhaps Seam Persistence plugin.

Discuss.

_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev




--
Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597



_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev