Should "Session Facade" Contain any Business Logic

Hi ,
According to link
http://java.sun.com/blueprints/corej2eepatterns/Patterns/SessionFacade.html
i.e. Core J2EE Pattern a session facade i.e. Enterprise Session Bean can directly call Entities and DAOs which seems to me adding more complexity to the system rather than reducing. According to my opinion Session Facade should not do any DAO Calls or Entity Reference directly rather it should delegate request to corresponding Handlers (i.e. POJOs) that should further call Service Objects i.e. simple POJOs for DAO calls because I hope this would cause more simplicity rather than adding every thing to Session Bean.
Note: I want to discuss in EJB 3.0 scenario.
Looking Forward:
Asad Ali Rathore.

946651 wrote:
i.e. Core J2EE Pattern a session facade i.e. Enterprise Session Bean can directly call Entities and DAOs which seems to me adding more complexity to the system rather than reducing. For some applications yes (I hesitate to say: most), for some, likely those with more complex transaction management requirements, the additional layer is actually a benefit. Its all a matter of perspective; for example if you use JPA then you can argue that that is already a 'dao' and you don't need yet another DAO layer.
The heart of the matter is: just because that article exists doesn't make it the truth. Do what you think works, not what Sun thought worked.

Similar Messages

=== SESSION FACADE v/s BUSINESS DELEGATE ===

Hi
Can anyone help me with my design here - I am not sure whether to use a Session Facade or a Business Delegate in the following scenario:
[Our application is pure J2EE and does not use EJBs]
PRESENTATION-TIER
I have a Command and Control strategy employed in my presentation tier where requests are intercepted by a controller and processed by helpers delegating to appropriate commands and dispatch appropriate responses.
PRESENTATION-TIER - COMMANDS
The Commands will invoke appropriate Business Methods in the business tier to retrieve data (mostly).
BUSINESS-TIER
Now - most of my business methods use the DAO pattern to retrieve data and are effectively dealing with Data Beans (Value Object beans) - passing them back to commands.
I can clearly see the use of a generic Interface at the Business tier - i.e., rather than expose the Buiness Methods direcly leading to increased coupling between presentation and business tiers.
BUT THE CONFUSING PART IS - DO I USE A SESSION FACADE OR A BUSINESS DELEGATE TO INTERFACE WITH MY COMMANDS??? What is the difference? I have looked at Sun's J2EE blueprint and cant make out the clear cut difference between the two.
Can anyone help?
thanks
Aswin

I agree with you, Business delegate and Session facade are quite alike.
I believe that you could use the Business delegate pattern as a facade. Possibly, you could argue that the Business delegate is an extension of the Session facade pattern. However, I think that SUN thinks that a Business delegate should be a singleton while a Session facade is a session EJB. My firm belief is that you could create a business delegate that is a session EJB instead.
But, you could also use both pattern as some one else suggested.
In your case when you do not use EJBs, I would suggest that you use a facade which could be design like a business delegate. However, as there aren't any EJBs, you will not need a service locator. In this way, you will have a design that can be extended (without any impact on the the presentation tier) to use EJBs in the future.
Remember, SUN's core J2EE patterns assume that you use EJBs. If you don't, they have to be adapter a little bit.

Entity Beans and Session beans to represet Business lOgic

How cam we implement Entity Beans and Session beans to represent Business Logic.
Can anyone explain how can we do this.
Regards...

I have session beans calling method in entity beans and any client
doesn't have access to entity beans, only via session beans.
If i define security policy and method permissions for session beans
only, do entity beans use that permissions when calling their methods
from sessions beans OR should i define the security policy for entity
beans separately?If you want to set the permission on individual
methods of entity bean ( with different roles)
you have to do it separately.
If you want to delegate the Authenticated user along with
the method call to the Entity Bean you can use
run-as-identity-principal.
For more detail please check out the EJB2.0 Spec.
-utpal

How to combine Session Facade and Transfer object?

Hello All!
I'm working on an enterprise application. Presentation layer is a stand alone client, business logic is build on the Glassfish v2.1 and MySQL is used as a database. The client is connection to the GlassFishj server remotely using EJBs.
I have problems with business logic architecture.
Here is the brief description of backend application architecture design:
1. Session Facade pattern is used to simplify the client and application server interface and to provide application layers between backend (http://java.sun.com/blueprints/corej2eepatterns/Patterns/SessionFacade.html).
2.Transfer Object pattern to define update transfer objects strategy in order to decrease network overhead during client and application server interactions and to provide version control for objects. Transfer objects are designed as simple java business serializable objects. (http://java.sun.com/blueprints/corej2eepatterns/Patterns/TransferObject.html)
3. Originally the backend application consisted of three modules: users, storage and orders, but at the end I have decided to divide my application into the following parts - assortments, map, menu, orders, transactions, users.
4. All MySQL database transactions are via JDBC using procedures. No use of entity beans.
Questions:
1. I have some doubts about using Session Facade and Transfer object patterns at the same time. At first I'd mike to cite the definitions of the patters from the SUN official web site.
* Use a session bean as a facade to encapsulate the complexity of interactions between the business objects participating in a workflow. The Session Facade manages the business objects, and provides a uniform coarse-grained service access layer to clients.
* Use a Transfer Object to encapsulate the business data. A single method call is used to send and retrieve the Transfer Object. When the client requests the enterprise bean for the business data, the enterprise bean can construct the Transfer Object, populate it with its attribute values, and pass it by value to the client.
* So, if I use Transfer Object along with Session Facade, it makes some difficulties with object version control, because I 2 or
3 transfer objects controls with the 1 bean class. The best option for Transfer object Pattern is that each transfer object should have its own bean class to provide ability of object's version control. In the case it can bring the network overhead because of frequent remote calls caused by the large number of the bean classes.
* So, should I use the both patterns? If yes, how to manage the interaction the patterns. If no, which one to use.
2. E.g. I have a huge list of the Order objects and each Order object consists of other complicated objects. So, would I have trouble to transfer that list over network? If yes, how to manage it.
Thank you!
Astghik

Astghik wrote:
Hello All!
I'm working on an enterprise application. Presentation layer is a stand alone client, business logic is build on the Glassfish v2.1 and MySQL is used as a database. The client is connection to the GlassFishj server remotely using EJBs.
I have problems with business logic architecture.
Here is the brief description of backend application architecture design:
1. Session Facade pattern is used to simplify the client and application server interface and to provide application layers between backend (http://java.sun.com/blueprints/corej2eepatterns/Patterns/SessionFacade.html).
I would simply recommend establishing a service tier. Your services should be stateless. You can go the extra mile and have a session facade, but in the majority of cases, coding to an interface for your service accomplishes the same goals.
2.Transfer Object pattern to define update transfer objects strategy in order to decrease network overhead during client and application server interactions and to provide version control for objects. Transfer objects are designed as simple java business serializable objects. (http://java.sun.com/blueprints/corej2eepatterns/Patterns/TransferObject.html)
The idea of the transfer object is very similar to the Command pattern. I think if you investigate that pattern, it will be more obvious. The transfer object reduces network latency by consolidating all the parameters into an object, ideally, this also consolidates multiple method calls. If you combine a transfer object (or command object) with a service tier, you get the best of both worlds. The service can delegate calls to helper objects (or other services or components) using the data in the transfer / command object.
3. Originally the backend application consisted of three modules: users, storage and orders, but at the end I have decided to divide my application into the following parts - assortments, map, menu, orders, transactions, users.
The is your domain. It will vary from application to application. The principles above are more general (e.g., patterns and architectural tiers) and should apply to most domains. However, your actual use case may require something different.
4. All MySQL database transactions are via JDBC using procedures. No use of entity beans.
Consider using something like iBatis or Spring's JDBC templating to make your life easier with JDBC.
Questions:
1. I have some doubts about using Session Facade and Transfer object patterns at the same time. At first I'd mike to cite the definitions of the patters from the SUN official web site.
* Use a session bean as a facade to encapsulate the complexity of interactions between the business objects participating in a workflow. The Session Facade manages the business objects, and provides a uniform coarse-grained service access layer to clients.
* Use a Transfer Object to encapsulate the business data. A single method call is used to send and retrieve the Transfer Object. When the client requests the enterprise bean for the business data, the enterprise bean can construct the Transfer Object, populate it with its attribute values, and pass it by value to the client.
* So, if I use Transfer Object along with Session Facade, it makes some difficulties with object version control, because I 2 or
3 transfer objects controls with the 1 bean class. The best option for Transfer object Pattern is that each transfer object should have its own bean class to provide ability of object's version control. In the case it can bring the network overhead because of frequent remote calls caused by the large number of the bean classes.
* So, should I use the both patterns? If yes, how to manage the interaction the patterns. If no, which one to use.
Versioning is a separate issue. Generally, the more coarsely grained your transfer / command object is, the more changes are likely to impact dependent objects.
Your command or transfer object does not have to be a vanilla JavaBean, where you are basically creating a bean that has data from other objects. You can simply use your command / transfer object to encapsulate already existing domain objects. I see no need to map to a JavaBean with what you have described.
Generally, a method signature should be understandable. This means that many times it is better to pass the method, say, two coarsely grained objects than a signature with a dozen primitives. There are no hard and fast rules here. If you find a method signature getting large, consider a transfer / command object. If you want one service to delegate calls to a number of other services, you can also create a transfer / command object to furnish the controlling service with the data it needs to invoke the dependent services.
2. E.g. I have a huge list of the Order objects and each Order object consists of other complicated objects. So, would I have trouble to transfer that list over network? If yes, how to manage it.
This is a large, open-ended question. If you are going to display it to a user on a screen, I do not see how you avoid a network transfer with the data. The general answer is to not pass the data itself but rather a token (such as a primary key, or a primary key and a start and stop range such as you see on a Google search result). You do want to limit the data over the network, but this comes at a cost. Usually, the database will receive additional load. Once that becomes unacceptable, you might start putting things into session. Then you worry about memory concerns, etc. There is no silver bullet to the problem. It depends on what issues you are trying to address and what trade-offs are acceptable in your environment.
Thank you!
AstghikBest of luck.
- Saish

ORaMTS Support of Multiple Business Logic Servers

Does the 8.1.7.4.0 of Oracle Services For MTS beta support multiple business logic servers connecting to a single Oracle database instance using MTS DTC coordinated transactions without a single point of failure?
We would like to ensure that if any business logic server goes off line, that they will not effect any of the other business logic servers.
In the previous version of OraMTS, if the machine running OraMTS went down, no other machines were able to perform MTS distributed transactions. Does 8.1.7.4.0 of Oracle Services For MTS beta remove this dependency?

Mark, we came out with 8.1.7.4.0 precisely for the reasons you have stated. There is no longer a Windows NT Oracle Service For MTS per database. The logic to enlist Oracle connections in MTS transactions, and the logic to subsequently commit/abort these transactions is fully contained within the middle-tier dlls i.e. ORAMTS.DLL. This removes the single point-of-failure in pre 8.1.7.4.0 versions, and also makes the solution more scalable.

Business Delegate & Session Facade

1 What is the need of Business delegate? For controlling the interactions between the presentation tier and business tier, session facade pattern can be used.
2 Can a session facade have all the facade related methods. (i.e. entire application has only one session facade). In the pattern documentation, it is stated as this stratergy inefficient. Why is so?

1 What is the need of Business delegate? The delegate provides a client-side business abstraction and acts as a proxy for the business service. Note that it is a proxy, not a facade. In other words, it is a "stand-in" for the biz service, but it is not aggregating several method invocations into one and controlling the processing flow. So, the delegate is not providing a higher-level interface to some underlying system, as would a facade.
So what's the need, if it's just a proxy? Obviously, it adds a layer, so one must consider its benefits versus the drawback of writing, maintaining, and interacting with this extra layer. In a sophisticated system, the benefits are many and will usually outweigh the drawbacks. Following are some of the benefits of using a delegate in the web container as an access point for invocations to the business tier:
- It hides the underlying implementation details of the business service (ie: lookup, creation, access details of EJB...The delegate may use the Service Locator pattern to achieve this goal).
- The delegate translates exceptions as necessary. Service-level exceptions, such as java.rmi.Remote can be intercepted by the delegate and translated into application exceptions. This also helps shield web container clients, for example, from EJB and network-related implementation details, which they should not need to worry about.
- The delegate can attempt retries/recovery efforts transparent to its clients, such that this code can be localized and reused, instead of being duplicated in numerous clients.
- The delegate can also manage a cache of resources/results, limiting unecessary remote roundtrips
- The delegate can be used as a control point for multi-threaded access into the business tier. For example, stateful beans are not to be invoked by multiple client threads simultaneously. The delegate can serialize access, or, as mentioned above, handle exceptions/retries, as necessary.
For
controlling the interactions between the presentation
tier and business tier, session facade pattern can be
used.If you decide to use a delegate in your system, based on considering its benefits, as described above, then you'll typically create a one-to-one mapping between a delegate and a session facade. The delegate is not controlling the processing flow per se, but rather serving as a single access point and proxy as described above. The facade acts as a controller, though, aggregating the interfaces of underlying components and subsystems into a higher-level interface. If you find that your using the delegate more as a facade, we recommend pushing this control code from the web container (where the delegate lives) back to the session bean in the ejb container, so that the logic can be reused across clients.
>
2 Can a session facade have all the facade related
methods. (i.e. entire application has only one session
facade). In the pattern documentation, it is stated
as this stratergy inefficient. Why is so?Having a single facade for the entire system would prove to be quite a maintenance and manageability headache for a non-trivial application. Imagine that every time something changes in any subsystem of the service layer, developers are all making changes to the same file and the same class...Not desirable and not very elegant. At the same time, one does not want to go the other way and create too many facades by having a one-to-one mapping of session facades to use cases, for example. We recommend aggregating a group of related interactions into a session facade, so that it provides highly course-grained access and control to underlying components.
Thanks,
Dan

Business Delegate and Session Facade usage.

Hi guys.
I am new to JavaEE and I recently learnt the Business Delegate and Session Facade design patterns. The tutorials from Oracle did gave me a basic idea of what they are and why they are used, but the example didn't really answer all my questions. So I decided to use a real life scenario here and put my question in to it. Any help is appreciated.
Assume I want to create a search employee page for my company, the employees are categorized by his or her department and the province he or she is in. I have in the database a look up table for department and province. (as shown in the image below)
http://oi46.tinypic.com/idvpsl.jpg
So I create three JPA entities, one for each table. Now I am stuck with what is the proper way to design the session facade design pattern. I know that I will need the to access all three entities in my page. (to get the drop down list for Provinces and Departments, and to retrieve list of Employees based on the selection) So should I create a Stateless Session Bean as session facade to access all three JPA Entities or should I create three separate Stateless Session Bean to manage one Entity each?
I came up three component diagram in the below picture.
The first one has one Stateless Session Bean as session facade and manages all three Entities.
The second one has a session facade to manage the relationship between business objects such as ProvinceManagerEJB and DepartmentManagerEJB which will manage the corresponding Entities.
The last one has three Stateless Session Beans that will manage one Entity each, all three Stateless Session Beans can be looked up via the Business Delegate pattern.
http://oi46.tinypic.com/10pqets.jpg
Please let me know if any one of them is the proper way to use business delegate and session facade. or none of them is correct. (which I assume might happen)
Again, thank you so much for your help.
Cheers
Edited by: 992005 on 05-Mar-2013 18:15
Edited by: 992005 on 05-Mar-2013 18:17

Well I can't access any of your diagrams from here so can't comment on them. For dividing the functionality into separate classes, think about
1.) Quantity - Are there many enough service calls to require splitting up or will one application service class be enough? The size of the system is important here.
2.) Are you duplicating logic in the services? e.g save person, delete person in one service and save department, delete department in another e.t.c is better factored into one service with save entity, delete entity calls because the JPA entity manager doesn't know about the type anyway and it's easier to apply common logic (e.g logging auditing) around the calls.
3.) Will each service makes sense on it's own or do you always need the other functionality to completely describe the service? Here it is important not think about entities but about the business use cases. Process1Service is better than Entity1Service, Entity2Service ... EntitynService.Think granule of reuse = granule of release. Only split out individually reusable services. A good way to understand granules of reuse in your system is to think about (or start by writing) test cases for the functionality. Testable code is reusable code.
4.) Will the services change together? At class level you would look at common closure principle (classes that change together should be packaged together). You can apply the closure to the methods as well. Make it easy for future developers to recognize dependent functionality by packaging it together.
These are just general because in enterprise development requirements are king. You can chose to follow or discard any of these rules depending on your requirements as long you understand the impact of each decision.

Business Delegate and Session Facade

Business Delegate as well as Session Facade are used to reduce coupling between presentation-tier clients and business services.
Could someone provide the key differences between these two patterns.
And one more, is Session Facade applicable(can be implemented) only to Enterprise Java Beans? Or even a POJO can be a Session Facade
Thanks in Advance

Business Delegate as well as Session Facade are used
to reduce coupling between presentation-tier clients
and business services.
Yes. And also in EJB to overcome some of the deficiencies in distributed architectures.
Could someone provide the key differences between
these two patterns.
Business Delegate is used by a client whereas the Session Facade is used to abstract a business service.
And one more, is Session Facade applicable(can be
implemented) only to Enterprise Java Beans? Or even a
POJO can be a Session Facade
Yes. Think of a session facade as your 'easy' or 'high-level' API. Your actual business tier may have its own 'low-level' API that callers should not have to interact with or understand.
Thanks in AdvanceYou're welcome.
- Saish

Business delegate and Session facade design patterns

Does any one tell me, what is the difference between business delegate and session facade design patterns.

1. Session Facade decouples client code from Entity beans introducing session bean as a middle layer while Business Delegate decouples client code from EJB layer ( Session beans).
2. SF reduces network overhead while BD reduces maintenance overhead.
3. In SF any change in Session bean would make client code change.
While in DB client is totally separate from Session bean because BD layer insulate client from Session beans(EJB layer).
3. In only SF scenario, Client coder has to know about EJB programming but BD pattern no EJB specialization needed.
4.SF emphasizes on separation of Verb, Noun scenario while BD emphasizes on separation of client(presentable) and EJB layer.
Anybody pls suggest more differences ?

Bean containing both UI components and business logic

Hello ADF design experts, please guide me.   I came across a critical design aspects. I have main page having bunch of UI components,   Region 1, Region 2. I will have to bind the UI components of the page to a managed bean having session scope and the reason is, when control goes to region 1 or region 2, I will be doing lot of processing of business logic and then based on this, I will have to update the UI components of the page.   Same thing with region 2 also. And then, I should be able to access the information    across regions and also across other UI components etc.
I am seeing only session scoped bean will be able to help me here to get my tasks done across regions and across all other UI components of the page because I am not in a position to pass too many parameters across regions.     Now the problem is, I can not serialize this bean because as I mentioned lot of UI components are updated based on logic.
If I do not serialize the bean, I may have problem in future when application has to be deployed to cluster envt.
I do not know how should I go with my design now.   Please provide me brilliant ideas and very thankful to your guidance.
thanks

Hi ADF,
I dont want to disturb the discussion with you and Alej. I'm rising some question from your first post.
I have main page having bunch of UI components,
ok fine.
Region 1, Region 2. I will have to bind the UI components of the page to a managed bean having session scope
1.why need to do this binding for all ui components .?
2.this question lead ask another question are you using ADFBc.? if so binding layer will take care why you bind all those things.
3.why you need to put session scope.?
if you are using region. the region can only be bounded TF right, then communicate with help of pageflow. inside the bounded you may have jsff/jspx,
reason is, when control goes to region 1 or region 2, I will be doing lot of processing of business logic and then based on this, I will have to update the UI components of the page.   Same thing with region 2 also.
from the reason i have question? why you need to communicate between two region instead of using Taskflow communication.
And then, I should be able to access the information across regions and also across other UI components etc.
ok fine.
I am seeing only session scoped bean will be able to help me here to get my tasks done across regions and across all other UI components of the page because I am not in a position to pass too many parameters across regions.     Now the problem is, I can not serialize this bean because as I mentioned lot of UI components are updated based on logic.
from my point of view. your are using all powerful feature session bean, region communication to do your requirement.
mixing all those things so only you can't able to get consistent results.
I do not know how should I go with my design now.
could you please explain your usecase.
Please provide me brilliant ideas and very thankful to your guidance.
yeah sure. people will do.
thanks

Business Delegate and Session Facade Pattern

Hi!
The only way to use the Session Facade Pattern, is if I use EJB for Persistence.
Is valid to do this?:
I use Ejb for simple update, insert querys. From my business delegate I call the Session Facade Layer, and from this I invoque Entyties for persistence.
But if I have complex querys, is correct to make PL SQL Procedures and do the following:
From my business delegate I call to the Dao layer, and from this via JDBC I call the Procedure.
Please explain me the best form to do this, having complex querys for reporting and simple querys for inserts/update.
Is valid to combine the use of CMP (for simple persistence cases), BMP (for complex persistence cases), and JDBC for complex select querys with multiple result rows.
Thanks!!

It depends on your design goals. One of the forces driving the use of patterns is the desire to tier an application and abstract the internals of each tier away from the other tiers. One (normal) benefit of this methodology is that the application should become more portable. Now, if you are using PL/SQL, BMP and CMP, you are mixing and matching portable versus proprietary. This is okay. But you should abstract away whether you are using PL/SQL, BMP or CMP from the business layer (or domain model). Ideally, you could completely swap database technologies (say from relational to object) and only have to re-write your integration tier (your DAO's).
Session facade is simply a glorified Facade pattern. It abstracts the lower-level details of what you are persisting and instead forces you to think in terms of objects. You can use a facade without even remotely touching EJB's. It just so happens that, historically, EJB containers made a mess out of scalability when it came to entity beans. The "session" facade refers to a facade pattern implemented in session beans (that have fewer scalability problems) communicating with the entity beans which do have scalability problems.
So... to make a long story short, use whatever persistence mechanism you desire. Remember that you should be able to completely switch your persistent store from one type or another and simply re-write your DAO's (or CMP deployment descriptors). Using a facade pattern can help towards this end, but don't make it a straightjacket.
- Saish
"My karma ran over your dogma." - Anon

Business Delegate / Session Facade interaction questions

I understand the concept and the benefits of a business delegate "front-ending" a session facade. I am hoping that someone can answer the following questions:
Is it acceptable if a business delegate were to front-end more than one session facade in order to create a more unified service. For example is it ok to create one business delegate that provides Account Inquiry and Maintenance functionality and behind the scenes it talks to an AccounInquiry Session Facade and AccountMaintenance Session Facade?
We are looking at a designing a Account Inquiry business delegate. It will return an AccountProfile business object. A behaviour of the AccountProfile object will be update capability (i.e. update account status, modify balance, etc.). Considering that the business object is a "business tier" component, is it ok fif it were to talk directly to an Account Update Session Facade or instead should it use a business delegate which in turn will call the session facade?

I understand the concept and the benefits of a
business delegate "front-ending" a session facade. I
am hoping that someone can answer the following
questions:
Is it acceptable if a business delegate were to
front-end more than one session facade in order to
create a more unified service. For example is it ok to
create one business delegate that provides Account
Inquiry and Maintenance functionality and behind the
scenes it talks to an AccounInquiry Session Facade and
AccountMaintenance Session Facade? This is a feasible solution. As long as you have 1:2 ratio or a ratio which is very less, it is fine. But one of the intents for having this pattern is also to make the client's life easier. If the client who's using your delegate is someone else, sitting else where, he/she would be wondering about the reason for a single class like AccountInquiryMaintenanceDelegate providing two different functionalities. So, this has to be kept in mind before coming up with a single class.
We are looking at a designing a Account Inquiry
business delegate. It will return an AccountProfile
business object. A behaviour of the AccountProfile
object will be update capability (i.e. update account
status, modify balance, etc.). Considering that the
business object is a "business tier" component, is it
ok fif "it"what does "it" mean here?? Did you mean the 'AccountProfile' bussiness object?? or the AccountInquiry business delegate??
were to talk directly to an Account Update
Session Facade or instead should it use a business
delegate which in turn will call the session facade?
HTH,
Kalyan

Business Delegate, Session Facade or both?

Hi,
I'm having some problems with figuring out the point of using both Business Delegate (BD) and Session Facade (SF). As far as I can see, you often have a 1-1 mapping between the BD and SF, so why not use the SF directly?
Here's my scenario. I have a web application that uses WebWork for presentation and pageflow, a session facade implemented using an ejb, which aggregates calls to the businness objects into "business rule"-methods and business objects implemented using plain java objects. Is there really any need to have a business delegate here? I might as well use the session facade directly from the webwork actions? Or..?
Any suggestions? Am I far off? ;-)

As far as I can see, you often have a 1-1 mapping between the BD and SF, so why not use the SFYou can have one Business Delegate encapsulate all of the business methods that are exposed by one or more Session Facades. The benefit here is that you protect the web component from any details of the business tier. e.g. your business tier has five session facades and the web tier has a single Business Delegate. The BD can be extended to call web services as well.
Here's my scenario. I have a web application that uses
WebWork for presentation and pageflow, a session
facade implemented using an ejb, which aggregates
calls to the businness objects into "business
rule"-methods and business objects implemented using
plain java objects. Say you eliminate the EJB implementation. What effect will this have on the web tier objects? The Business Delegate will enable you to easily replace the business implementation with little impact on the web components.

Difference between session facade and business delegate patterns

Hi,
How the session facade and business delegate patterns differ from each other, as both of them have similar and almost same forces to be addressed.
Please address.
Satya.

BTW, in J2EE Core patterns :
When the Business Delegate is udes with a Session Facade, typically there is a one-to-one relationship between the two. This one-to-one relationship exists because logic that might have been encapsulated in a Business Delegate relating to its interaction with multiple business services (creating a one-to-many relationship) will often be factored back into a Session Facade.[I/]

Difference between Session Facade and Business Delegate design patterns

Can someone tell me the differences between Session Facade and Business Delegate design patterns

1. Session Facade decouples client code from Entity beans introducing session bean as a middle layer while Business Delegate decouples client code from EJB layer ( Session beans).
2. SF reduces network overhead while BD reduces maintenance overhead.
3. In SF any change in Session bean would make client code change.
While in DB client is totally separate from Session bean because BD layer insulate client from Session beans(EJB layer).
3. In only SF scenario, Client coder has to know about EJB programming but BD pattern no EJB specialization needed.
4.SF emphasizes on separation of Verb, Noun scenario while BD emphasizes on separation of client(presentable) and EJB layer.
Anybody pls suggest more differences ?

Should "Session Facade" Contain any Business Logic

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for