Should I have a bean for every form, datatable etc in JSF?
For example, I have a form for registration, which simply has 2 fields and a button which are:
nickname, password, submit
Should submitting this form go to a RegistirationFormBean or somewhere in UserBean or UserServiceBean?
What is the best practice?
Thank you.
To decide whether or not you should create a #ManagedBean exclusively for a component of the page (e.g. form, datatable), I believe you should think about the modularity of your design.
The 1st question you should ask yourself is: Will the component be re-used in many pages?. For example, on sensitive pages such as ChangePassword or DeleteAccount, usually, you will ask the user to enter the current password to validate his identity before performing any logic. In this case, you should definitely have an exclusive bean for the validating password component so that you can re-use the component again and again without having to re-code the validating function every time.
Secondly, I usually use #ManagedBean as a place to hold all the related functions that work toward the same goal. This grouping of functions can be pretty subjective. For example, I can have a page called CreateProduct.xhtml with a bean called CreateProductBean that has all the functions for creating a product. In this case, it's like 1 bean per view. Another way is to have a bean called ProductManager that has functions for everything related to the Product object (i.e. create, read, update, remove). In this case, it's like 1 bean for many views (e.g. CreateProduct.xhtml, RemoveProduct.xhtml). For ease of future maintenance and division of work, I usually use 1 bean per view. The 2nd approach 1 bean for many views is also good on certain situations but I suddenly cannot think of an example yet :P... I will update my answer when I got a good one ;).
Thirdly, I prefer to follow the 3-tier MVC model and separate back-end logic away from the front-end. For example, to persist a new account in the database, I will inject an #EJB or a #WebServiceRef to ask the back-end system to perform the necessary logic. It's definitely more maintenance friendly in the future :).
So, using your RegisterAccount example, I will have
1 bean called UserExistenceValidator to check if a nickname exists in the database. During registration, I can throw an error if the user chooses a nickname that is taken. I can also use this bean to check if a user exists in the AddFriend.xhtml page.
Another bean called RegistirationFormBean to capture a user's inputs and talk to the back-end to persist the new account.
Its actually a pretty interesting topic to tweak any JSF lover's brain, so I could not resist myself and I would like to go with detail explanation.
One of the very interesting and significant cause behind the invention of JSF was, wiring client side event to server side application code like any swing application and getting rid of handing of request and response object explicitly. Like any swing application, we can now simply bind any client side event (say, button click) with some server side code to handle that event, without worrying the facts and complexities of writing an web application.
As a result when designing any web apps, that uses JSF, the designer can focus on the user experience as easily as designing an event driven swing application. So as the consequence, you design the view pages and identify the events to do tasks and navigate between the views. Finally you write some server side codes to be executed in those events, to do the job you want. Those server side codes reside in your managed beans.
If we classify based on the type responsibility, there are several types of managed beans:
Model Managed-Bean
Backing Managed-Bean
Controller Managed-Bean
Support Managed-Bean
Utility Managed-Bean
You will find the details of each of the type in this article.
Your problem is, how to distribute the responsibilities of Controller Managed-Bean. There are several issues to consider, while you are distributing this kind of responsibilities:
The complexity of the task to do.
Re-usability of it.
Modularity in terms of responsibility (type of jobs to do).
Modularity in terms of business perspective.
Decoupling the responsibilities. etc.
You can design your system to with a single controller for all the views of your simple CURD operations of a model. But if you need to handle multiple complex transactions in your single create operation, then separating the operations to multiple controllers, would be a better design. Though your registration procedure is pretty much simple, you should use a separate controller to handle the task. Because it will not be a good idea, to put any task in the same managed bean, that is not simple and related enough to reside with the task "registration". I think this, concludes your query!
you should a data transfer object bean and a domain bean for ui submission and for persistence in db respectively.
using a controller class, process your ui jsf submission data and create a clean domain bean and use this to persist.
the best practice should always de-couple processes/entities if possible.
also your dto bean might have accessory and more data than your domain bean which u might require for several purposes.
In similar situations, I always have a UserManagedBean that handles user relative operations, such as login, registration, change password, etc...
To deal with these operations, I put an attribute in the UserManagedBean of type User (or whatever class name) which corresponds to the persisted data related to users (usually in DB table user).
In your case nickname and password are attributes of the User class. As for the submit it will invoke a method in the UserManagedBean to authenticate user:
<h:inputText value="#{userManagedBean.user.nickname}"/>
<h:inputSecret value="#{userManagedBean.user.password}"/>
<h:commandButton value="Login" action="#{userManagedBean.loginUser}"/>
Of course, the loginUser method will invoke a call to the service layer which will invoke DAO layer to check credentials against DB (or other storage).
If the login is successful, the user attribute in our managed bean (which should be session scoped) is initialized with returned object from DB.
Related
I have been doing Java and Ruby (and used frameworks) for some while and I know MVC is a way to separate code. The thing is, I think I never really used it in the way it should.
The first question is: Business logic, what does it mean? Does Business logic mean the logic that is special for that application? Let say you are building a Satellite system. Is the business logic the code that is unique for that Satellite system and make it work?
What does "domain" mean? Like in domain logic or domain as a term.
"Keep your model smart, controllers thin and view dumb". This statement clearly indicates that the controllers which I load with too much code is the wrong way of writing it.
As an example. If you have a BankAccount class. Then should this class provide methods for behavior such as validating etc as well as getter/setter?
What should the controller be doing? Just redirecting input/events in the view to the model and maybe update view (which is the case in webframeworks).
For example in Java and JPA you have the entityManager that you use for finding entities, maybe do something on them etc. Should this entitymanager be used in the controller, or should you make another layer named e.g. "Service" which the controller uses. But again, does this server layer then belong to the Model in MVC? How would you do this in Rails?
I don't get the Model nor the Controller concept right I think.
Think of applications as being layered. When working on each layer, always think to yourself, "Is this layer dependent on the layer above it or can it work independently?" That is the basis to a good MVC application.
When thinking of layers in an MVC style application, there are a few.
In my mind the layers (from top to bottom) are the view, controllers, business logic, and data access.
The view could be JSP or even AJAX requests from jQuery. This is where the user interacts with your application. The view sends information to the business logic layer to do work.
Controllers should be written to collect data sent to it from the view, transform it in a way that the business logic can understand it, and then pass the information into the business logic layer. Controllers may also take information retured from the business logic layer, transform it, and send it back to the view. No real "business logic" should happen here. Think of it as a broker between the view and the business object layer. This is also a great spot for validating data submitted by the view.
Business logic is a layer you would find in the middle, typically between the controllers and data access layer. This could also be called a service layer. It should be written to not know anything about what is calling it. If written correctly, you could use this layer in a standalone application. Here is where a lot of the application smarts should take place. A lot of times, this layer is simply here to call the data access layer and return the results back to the controllers. But, a lot of other things could go on here like data manipulation, calculations, data security, validation, etc.
The data access layer should be written in such a way that it takes it's input, retrieves the appropriate data, transforms it into a useable form, and returns it. This layer should not know or care what is calling it and should be written in that way. Again, this layer should not know it is in a web application or a stand alone application. There are a lot of options here to make your life simpler in the form or ORM (Object Relational Mapping) frameworks. If your application is a step above trivial, you should think about using one.
In the traditional sense, the model could be the business logic layer and the data access layer as well as the domain objects that go along with them.
Using "BankAccount" as an example:
"BankAccount" sounds more like a domain object (representation of data in a database) than a class that has logic in it. Typically domain objects only have the fields they need (account number, balance, etc.) with getters and setters.
The user might log into their bank website. On login, the view sends the username to the controller (BankAccountController). The controller takes this information out of the request and sends it to the service layer (BankAccountService). The service layer would send this information to the data access layer which does a query for the BankAccounts that the user might have and return them to the service layer which returns them to the controller. The controller will manipulate this information in some way that the view layer can display them to the user. There would be a similar series of events when the user transfers money between accounts, for instance.
Hope this helps... let me know if you have any more questions or if something isn't clear.
Edit:
Besides the links posted by the other users, Wikipedia has a brief, but pretty good article on MVC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller
This is a follow-on to my question Spring Web MVC - validate individual request params.
I've figured out how to invoke the Spring Validator on domain objects that have been created from my inputs and how to have that validator honor the JSR-303 annotations on my classes themselves. The part I can't figure out is where in my code to perform this validation. The obvious approach is to do it in the controller and return a different model and view if there's a validation failure.
But I also have a service layer which sometimes gets calls to create/update objects from input sources other than the web controller. So it's tempting to implement validation there, but the only obvious way I can think of to report a failure is throw an exception. I see Spring provides BindException but the Javadoc also basically says not to use it in application code.
What is the common/recommended practice here?
I think the answer is both.
Controllers are associated with views. You don't want the validation to disappear if you change view technologies.
Services should assume that no one is safe and validate all incoming parameters.
Other answers are all good, I'll just state one important rule:
Each subsystem/layer should validate its input, no matter where it comes from.
When you encapsule the validation logic inside of a ValidationService you can use it inside your controllers and services. As you want the user to interact with the input and to correct invalid information you should be able to display validation problems in your web view.
Sometimes you might have data (CommandObjects, Forms) which is not directly visible in the service layer and then the validation should be done in the controller which then passes the information into the service layer.
When you design your application you should think about the interaction between each layer. Mixinig validation logic into every layer might not be needed. Think about how data gets into your system. If controllers are your main entry point you can perfectly place it there since no data gets into your services without passing the validation.
At least you should validate inputs at the service layer, in order to guarantee correctness. Additionally you can do validations further up to get better usability, etc. if needed.
I know that there are many different architectures exist. In this question I consider 3-tiers architecture (presentation-services (busyness logic)-data access layer (DAOs). And I want to concentrate on how presentation tier works with services tier.
The problem I met is standard. I have stateless services layer, and I think it should be stateless for the sake of scalability and performance.
I also have stateful presentation layer. For example, when user fills some form and inputed values don't pass validation, it's good practice to show all fields with inputed values and to point to incorrect fields.
So, imagine that we have FooBean with methods setFoo (Foo f), getFoo () and doSave (). Bean has Session scope.
And we want to save (persist) new instance of Foo. What we do is call method setFoo () and then call method doSave (). If saving failed than user will see just filled form with all inputed values (getFoo () method is called).
That's nice, but now imagine that user clicks Create Foo link, fills all fields, tries to save but doesn't pass validation? He will see filled form again. And then he clicks on 'Create Foo' again (he wants to create 2 Foo objects simultaneously). He will see filled form with pointed errors. But it's bad, because he didn't fill this (second, new) form yet.
If we change FooBean scope to Request, than we won't be able to show filled form when it's necessary (after saving failed).
So, what is the way out? What is the correct solution? It can be JSF-specific or general.
You need something called "conversation". There are a number of ways for achieving this.:
MyFaces orchestra
JBoss seam
A conversation is either automatically or manually managed scope that is greater than a request, but is smaller than a session. Ideally it should store your beans as long as they are needed to be stored - i.e. in one conversation. So from your example, the first conversation will end at the point the use navigates away from the first page.
MyFaces orchestra (I can't tell for seam) can also differentiate between different browser windows/tabs.
What is the best way to share common objects between multiple views in an MVC application? Say I have a LoginController that takes a user name and password and authenticates the user and loads their data (account info, full name, etc.). I want to display this on each page - something like a header with "Welcome <user name>, you have <account value> in your account." I don't think I should just store that user object in session. Do I have to return it with each controller?
I'm using the Spring framework for this application, but I don't think that matters. There must be some generic way to handle this common use case.
Update
Not sure if this matters, but I also need the UserID (a primary key returned upon login) as a parameter into other controllers. As this is just another value on the user object returned but not displayed, I would think the answer would be the same as data that is displayed.
You're not really sharing common objects - this is common data (and yes, wrapped by an object). Lets say you have a minimal UserInfo class and a corresponding template fragment that displays it. That fragment will be included in your views.
But regardless of the framework (and how you add this common fragment to your views) the framework/template engine will need to find a 'userInfo' binding and get the required fields.
Unless you are planning on hitting your (db) back-end on every page request to get that information, you will need to cache it. Typically this will be in the session.
If there's quite a lot of logic associated with the common elements, it may be easier to perform a sub-request using ServletRequest.getRequestDispatcher() aka <jsp:include />, then you can go through the whole request processing cycle again with a "Sub-Controller" and "Sub-View".
EDIT: look at Spring MVC HandlerInterceptors
I've handled this exact use case before in a Spring MVC application by having a HandlerInterceptor (Javadoc link) add these details to the ModelAndView for all pages in which I needed it.
Since the whole purpose of a HandlerInterceptor is to be able to have common functionality applied to many requests and/or responses by a single piece of code, this is a natural fit. An Interceptor allows you to hook into either the pre- or post-handle step of a Controller; and you can configure your UrlHandlerMapping to only apply the interceptor to certain URLs (or patterns of URLs) if you wish.
Anyone know of any other custom spring scopes than Servlet Context Scope and ThreadScope ?
If you've made some closed-source custom scope I'd really also be interested in hearing what it does and how it worked out for you. (I'd imagine someone would make a WindowScope in a desktop app ?)
I'm open to all use cases, I'm looking to expand my horizon here.
We implemented our own custom Spring scope. A lot of our code works at a relatively low level, close to the database, and we maintain a conceptual level on top of that with its own object model of data sources, links, attributes etc.
Anyway, a lot of beans require a so-called StorageDictionary (an encapsulation of this object graph) to do their work. When we make non-trivial changes to the object graph, the dictionary sometimes needs to be blown away and recreated. Consequently, we implemented a custom scope for objects that were dictionary scoped, and part of the invalidation of a given dictionary involves clearing this custom scope. This lets Spring handle a nice form of automatic caching for these objects. You get the same object back every time up until the dictionary is invalidated, at which point you get a new object.
This helps not only with consistency but also allows the objects themselves to cache references to entities within the dictionary, safe within the knowledge that the cache will be valid for as long as they themselves are retrievable by Spring. This in turn lets us build these as immutable objects (so long as they can be wired via constructor injection), which is a very good thing to do anyway wherever possible.
This technique won't work everywhere and does depend heavily on the characteristics of the software (e.g. if the dictionary was modified regularly this would be horribly inefficient, and if it was updated never this would be unnecessary and slightly less efficient than direct access). However, it has definitely helped us pass off this management of lifecycle to Spring in a way that is conceptually straightforward and in my opinion quite elegant.
In my company we've created two custom scopes, one that will use Thread or Request and another that will use either Thread or Session. The idea is that a single scope can be used for scoped beans without having to change configuration based on the execution environment (JUnit or Servlet container). This also really comes in handy for when you run items in Quartz and no longer have a Request or Session scope available.
Background:
I work on a single web app that runs 4 different web sites under the same servlet context. Each site has its own domain name, e.g. www.examplesite1.com, www.examplesite2.com, etc.
Problem:
Sites sometimes require their own customised instance of a bean from the app context (usually for customised display of messages or formatting of objects).
For example, say sites 1 and 2 both use the "standardDateFormatter" bean, site 3 uses the "usDateFormatter" bean and site 4 uses the "ukDateFormatter" bean.
Solution:
I'm planning on using a "site" scope.
We have a Site enum like this:
enum Site {
SITE1, SITE2, SITE3, SITE4;
}
Then we have a filter that stores one of these Site values in the request's thread using a ThreadLocal. This is the site scope's "conversation id".
Then in the app context there'd be a bean named "dateFormatter", with 'scope="site"'. Then, wherever we want to use a date formatter, the correct one for the user's current site will be used.
Added later:
Sample code here:
http://github.com/eliotsykes/spring-site-scope
Oracle Coherence has implemented a datagrid scope for Spring beans. To sum it up:
A Data Grid Bean is a proxy to a
java.io.Serializable Bean instance
that is stored in a non-expiring
Coherence Distributed Cache (called
near-datagridbeans).
Never used them myself but they seem cool.
Apache Orchestra provides SpringConversationScope.
In a Spring Batch application, we have implemented an item scope.
Background
We have lots of #Service components which compute something based on the current batch item. Many of them need the same workflow:
Determine relevant item parts.
Init stuff based on the item.
For each item part, compute something (using stuff).
We moved the workflow into a base class template method, so the subclasses implement only findItemParts(Item) (doing 1 and 2) and computeSomething(ItemPart) (doing 3). So they became stateful (stuff initialized in findItemParts is needed in computeSomething), and that state must be cleared before the next item.
Some of those services also involve injected Spring beans which are also derived from the current item and must be removed afterwards.
Design
We implemented an AbstractScopeRegisteringItemProcessor which registers the item and allows subclasses to register derived beans. At the end of its process method, it removes the item from its scope context, and the derived beans using DefaultSingletonBeanRegistry.destroySingleton.
How it worked out
It works, but has the following problems:
We did not manage to get the derived beans cleaned up without registration (just based on their #Scope). The concrete processor must create and register them.
AbstractScopeRegisteringItemProcessor would have been nicer using composition and dynamically implementing all interfaces of the underlying processor. But then the resulting #StepScope bean is a proxy for the declared return type (i.e. AbstractScopeRegisteringItemProcessor or ItemProcessor) without the required callback interfaces.
EDIT
With the aid of #Eliot Sykes's solution and shared code plus #Cheetah's BeanDefinition registration, I was able to get rid of the registration as singleton beans. Instead, ItemScopeContext (the storage used by both the processor and the Scope implementation; Java-configured via a static #Bean method) implements BeanDefinitionRegistryPostProcessor. It registers a FactoryBean whose getObject() returns the current item or throws an exception if there is none. Now, a #Component annotated with #Scope(scopeName = "Item", proxyMode = ScopedProxyMode.TARGET_CLASS) can simply inject the item and need not be registered for end-of-scope cleanup.
So in the end, it did work out well.
A spring locale scope based on the users locale wihtin a web application
See related wiki page
In my company, we have also implemented spring custom scope. We have a multi tenant system where every customer can customize settings. Instance based scope of ours, caches the beans which are customer specific. So each time user of a customer logs in, these settings are cached and reused again when other users of the same customers sign in.
I once used a kind of conversation scope to store some objects in the session scope, in order to keep them when re-entering the same page, but limited to a single page to avoid to leave useless objects in the session. The implementation just stored the page URL and cleaned the conversation scope on each page change.