struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From gdesc...@cmhc-schl.gc.ca
Subject Re: [OT] Session facade
Date Wed, 07 Jul 2004 20:16:00 GMT
:)

Perhaps I could have used Exceptions but well at least I use a Constant 
file.... a little better!
The more I think about the better it seems to get.... damn I have some 
code rewriting to do...

Thanks Bill.






Bill Siggelkow <billsigg@bellsouth.net>
Sent by: news <news@sea.gmane.org>
07/07/2004 04:10 PM
Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"




 
        To:     user@struts.apache.org
        cc: 

        Subject:        Re: [OT] Session facade
 Classification: 


Glenn, I was with you until the part about the "return code" ... I think 
it would be better to translate the DAOException to some 
BusinessServiceException or something similar instead of a "return code".
Generally, I try and avoid the "method returns a -1 to indicate that the 
operation failed" kind of thing -- it is so 'C' like :)

gdeschen@cmhc-schl.gc.ca wrote:

> my 2 cents...
> 
> I am using the Facade in my current project.
> 
> Firstly, just in case that EJBs will be introduced in subsequent phases.
> 
> Secondly, the DAO throws exceptions of DAOException & a FatalException.
> Say that a Stored Procedure returns an application error (invalid 
> parameter in a SP); this is treated as a DAOException.
> Say that the DB is not there this is treated as a FatalException.
> 
> The Facade catches and interprets the DAOException with a Return Code.
> Say that the DB is used to authenticate a User Id and Password.
> The Facade is where the DAOException to translated into a simple Return 
> Code that the Action will check for.
> 
> This a way the Action classes are nice a clean!
> - Glenn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Ricardo Cortes" <rcortes@boltstaff.com>
> 07/07/2004 03:28 PM
> Please respond to "Struts Users Mailing List"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>         To:     "Struts Users Mailing List" <user@struts.apache.org>
>         cc: 
> 
>         Subject:        RE: Session facade
>  Classification: 
> 
> 
> I would assert you don't need the Session Facade as one of the 
advantages 
> of the Session Facade is it's ability to abstract the low level 
operations 
> of the Session EJBs from upper layers of your architecture.  You could 
> probably have your actions talking to a Business Delegate layer or your 
> DAO layer directly.  Of course, this is just one viewpoint.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Larry (L.) [mailto:lzhang20@ford.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 2:59 PM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Subject: Session facade
> 
> 
> 
>  It seems session facade design pattern is becoming ubiquitous. My 
> question is that 
>  if we are not going to use EJB(but we do have DAO-data access object), 
> does it still make sense to use session facade?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org




Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message