RE: [Springframework-developer] Petclinic updated

[<pr...@se...>]

Your reasoning (and Rod/Juergen's) makes perfect sense, and a quick look at 
the source confirms the "bad smells" you mentioned.  I know how a manager 
feels now, asking a question based on incomplete info (I commented based on 
the "design" I saw by the class names, and didn't actually dig into the code) 
that is usually a very well-thought out decision by the programmer.  "The 
programmers always right" :) , I was just a little quick (and pointy-haired) 
for a few minutes last night!

My biggest concern seeing those changes was that our samples will be used by 
many as a model of how to design their programs using Spring, and it may 
appear to many that a Spring best-practice is to merge the business object 
with the persistence object.  While it makes perfect sense in this case (due 
to the reasons you identified), it is not totally clear why this decision was 
made by looking at the code.  We should probably document why this code is 
done this way to help newbies understand that this a solution to this specific 
problem (and not necessarily the "normal" way for most apps).  Documenting it 
will also prevent somebody (like me) who isn't familiar with the history and 
design decisions from changing it back to how it was before.


Great work,
Trevor