|
| Hello,
I am hoping that someone, perhaps George Niece, might be able to help
me with this question. In an earlier post George suggested having a
html/graphic designer use Dreamweaver. I spoke with my boss about
this and he immediately said that Dreamweaver supports JavaBeans and
that the html/graphic designer would be able to use these when
developing pages. My immediate and sustained reaction has been that
this is not doable. My boss believes, based on extremely limited
knowledge of WCS, J2EE, Java and the whole ball of wax, that the
designer will be able to work with these JavaBeans and manipulate how
the data returned is displayed. My boss says that I should just copy
the JavaBean "code" over and have Dreamweaver use that when
determining what the beans display. My boss also says that since
Dreamweaver supports JDBC connections that it will sometimes be able
to show the data retrieved by these JavaBeans. My reasoning for not
thinking that this would not work is that DataBeans extend access
beans which extend enterprise Java beans which in turn access the
database through a jdbc connection. There are many layers between the
databeans used on the JSP display side and the actual database model
layer. I also do not think that Dreamweaver will be able to work with
the databeans although I am somewhat shakier on whether this is in
fact correct. The reasoning for this is that my understanding of
databeans is that they are essentially JavaBeans. They should
therefore have a set of fields and getter and setter methods for them.
A design tool that is capable of working with JavaBeans should be able
to analyze the bean and allow the designer to work with the getter and
setters. However, even if the designer could work with these
DataBeans from within the tool I do not see what she would gain by
doing so. Can anyone provide a solid explanation for why this will not
work that I can take back to my boss? If I am wrong, which I really
do not think I am, please let me know. As always any help is greatly
appreciated and please be blunt if necessary.
Thanks,
John
|
|