Part II: Cade's usage of a Controller within the Class Diagram & the Sequence Diagrams

[Allexicus Kernikus]

I have noticed a strange usage of Controller objects within Cade's example for Part II & III.

In his exemplary class diagram he uses one central Controller object for all views (JSPs). In his subsequent sequence diagram he uses a NoticeController for his CreateNotice.jsp.

First of all, isn't it advisable to design your system to use one central controller, and each view to use its own model (e.g. a backing bean). I've so far not come across multiple controllers, each for a specific view...

Second, if multiple controllers would be advisable, shouldn't these be denoted in the Class Diagram as well?

- Alex

[Dannyf Soon]

I wanted to ask the same questions as yours.

Ranchers please share your idea on Allexicus's questions.

-Danny

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

In JSF< a controller contains logic. It's not like other (mostly older) frameworks which use the controller to delegate to an action. Since there is logic, it makes sense to have multiple controllers for different parts of the app. The class diagram should be consistent with the sequence diagrams though.

I added this to the list of issues with the example in the book.

[Krzysztof Koziol]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:In JSF< a controller contains logic. It's not like other (mostly older) frameworks which use the controller to delegate to an action. Since there is logic, it makes sense to have multiple controllers for different parts of the app. The class diagram should be consistent with the sequence diagrams though.

I added this to the list of issues with the example in the book.

Hi Jeanne,

Do you mean managed beans for each JSF page?

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Yes. The managed beans are sometimes referred to as the controller.

[Krzysztof Koziol]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Yes. The managed beans are sometimes referred to as the controller.

Did you add Managed Beans in the Component Diagram as separate components?

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Krzysztof Koziol wrote:

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Yes. The managed beans are sometimes referred to as the controller.

Did you add Managed Beans in the Component Diagram as separate components?

Yes. I don't think it should be that way in the real world, but it seemed important to Oracle.

[Krzysztof Koziol]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:
Yes. I don't think it should be that way in the real world, but it seemed important to Oracle.

Thanks for this info. Did you somehow show in the Component Diagram that JSPs and Managed Beans are part of JSF framework? Could we use different colors for those components or add <<JSF>> stereotype?

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Krzysztof Koziol wrote:

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:
Yes. I don't think it should be that way in the real world, but it seemed important to Oracle.

Thanks for this info. Did you somehow show in the Component Diagram that JSPs and Managed Beans are part of JSF framework? Could we use different colors for those components or add <<JSF>> stereotype?

Grudgingly. I did put JSPs on the component diagram. I said they were JSPs but didn't connect to JSF there.

[Nilessh Ganu]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Yes. The managed beans are sometimes referred to as the controller.

1. Jeanne, I agree JSF managed beans(and JSF validators too ?) are sometimes referred to as controllers, but the naming convention used by Cade's book do not suggests this. For example, BidController might not be the managed bean. It seems like a pure controller.

But I am not sure if we can have different controllers in JSF. As FacesServlet is final and we cannot redirect/delegate to specific controllers.

2. Another question in relation: I am using a JSF custom validator for one of the JSF component, can I show it like this in my sequence diagram:

abc.jsp     Controller(facesservlet)       AbcManagedBean       AbcValidator        SLSB
                     |-------------->|---------->|-------------------->|

                                                 |<-validation result--|

                                                             getxxxEntities()
                                                 |---------------------------------->|

[Gurukant Desai]

Hi Nilessh,

1) Even though FacesServlet is final and we can still redirect/delegate to specific controllers on basis of URL pattern configured in FacesServlet. Say /ABC/* will redirect to ABCController.java and /DEF/* will redirect to DEFController.java.

I agree that in Cade's book they have not refered BidController as managed bean, because they have not taken any framework into consideration. But in JSF framework managed bean can do the same work that is done by BidController in Cade's book.

2) I am planning not to show any validator in any of the diagram, in order to be in-sync with Cade's diagrams.

Fellow Ranchers, Please share your opinions on both points!

[Nilessh Ganu]

Sorry Gurukant to reply late.

Gurukant Desai wrote:

1) Even though FacesServlet is final and we can still redirect/delegate to specific controllers on basis of URL pattern configured in FacesServlet. Say /ABC/* will redirect to ABCController.java and /DEF/* will redirect to DEFController.java.

Right, but then we are moving away from having a single centralized controller(Front controller).

I am using JSF validators(flow described in my other post) in sequence diagram and component diagram.
Ranchers, does that sounds good ?

[Gurukant Desai]

Hi Nilessh,

That is fine as per Application Controller J2EE design pattern, A front controller can delegate the request processing to Applicaiton Controller.

FacesServlet of JSF is example of FrontController and Managed beans are Application Controllers.

I have not shown any validators in any of my diagrams (As per example in Cade's book). However there is no harm in showing validators. The detailed the better.