On Mon, October 17, 2005 1:15 pm, Dave Newton said: > My only response would be that ultimately, I still prefer to have less > coupling: with a POJO bean and a DAO it gives me one more place I can > change implementation. That said, if you added a "setDao" or whatever to > the above Customer I might bitch a little less.
I was thinking the same thing, about coupling I mean. The OP had me questioning myself, but you just reminded me why I don't do things as shown in the code I posted... It's always been the same argument I use when someone asks me why we should use an ActionForm and not directly set properties on a DTO. Aside from the fact that an ActionForm *is* a DTO anyway, it always felt like there was more coupling going on without it. But I digress... I agree with your sentiment here, thanks for reminding me of it! > I suppose that I could implement the getters/setters in a base class and > implement CRUD in subclasses, but I still prefer the cleaner separation. > > But I'm weird. Nah, I don't think so ;) Well, I happen to agree, and it's a known fact that *I* am weird, so maybe my extension... :-) > Dave Frank > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
