Simpler version of pet store

[A J Kumar]

Hi,

I went throught some of the post of the certified SCEA and a lot of them are suggesting to use SIMPLIFIED version of Java Pet store. I am not sure if I understood that.

what are the components that people are usually omitting/not using frequently. I personally feel that the pet store design is too complicated. Do we really need EJBController, Events, Command pattern etc. How about just using the HTMLAction. Once you determine which HTMLAction to call, just call the corresponding Business delegate that can intern invoke Session facade for that particular functionality.

Please throw in your ideas...

Thanks,
AJ

[Dhiren Joshi]

AJ ,
I think the petstore simplified can do without the webcontroller and component manager as separate components.
The Action event class pairs will be required for an extensibile design.
The Template creation can also be simplified.
Also the Front controller implements an application service pattern which could be simplified but at the cost of a rigid design.
HTH
Dhiren

[A J Kumar]

Dhiren,

Thanks for the response. Guys and gals... please provide invaluable ideas and suggestions.

Thanks,
AJ

[Ramon Gill]

AJ,
You seem to be describing the STRUTS framework, which I find simpler than WAF (used for blueprints). Maybe just pull out the bits from STRUTS that fit with Cade's examples (Controller, Actions, etc).

Ray

[A J Kumar]

Thanks Ray.

I understand it very well by reading previous posts that it is safest to use WAF to secure good marks in the exam. However personally I feel that WAF is little bit complicated and can be simplified. I would prefer to use Struts/JSF for any real world application.
[ October 26, 2004: Message edited by: A J Kumar ]

[Ramon Gill]

Hi AJ,
How about cutting WAF to the bone by showing a single component in the Web tier (for customer), and a single component in the Client tier (for travel agent), and use comments to describe all the classes and patterns they use (i.e. front controller, etc, for customer, MVC, etc for Client). The EJB tier could have more components, such as Session Facades, etc.

These would then be Cade-like.

What do you think?

Ray

[A J Kumar]

Originally posted by Ramon Gill:
Hi AJ,
How about cutting WAF to the bone by showing a single component in the Web tier (for customer), and a single component in the Client tier (for travel agent), and use comments to describe all the classes and patterns they use (i.e. front controller, etc, for customer, MVC, etc for Client). The EJB tier could have more components, such as Session Facades, etc.

These would then be Cade-like.

What do you think?

Ray

Ramon,

Now you are talking about real world applications.


AJ

[Dhiren Joshi]

How about cutting WAF to the bone by showing a single component in the Web tier (for customer), and a single component in the Client tier (for travel agent),

Showing a single component for the client tier is acceptable and lots of SCEA's have done just that
But

How about cutting WAF to the bone by showing a single component in the Web tier (for customer)

and use comments to describe all the classes and patterns they use (i.e. front controller, etc, for customer, MVC, etc for Client). The EJB tier could have more components, such as Session Facades, etc.

Just putting the web tier in one note is IMO risky as what kind of interation would u show from u web tier in the component diagram.
simplify the HTMLactions and event call but u would IMO still need to show some components other then just a black box on the web tier.
I havent seen of any SCEA Posts who recommended a single component for web tier.

But again u never know what is acceptable to the graders.If it is explained and detailed enough in notes and assumption doc and if it looks more realistic go for it.

HTH
Dhiren