I have my code working, but I don't know if the way that I implemented it is appropriate. Basically, I want to maintain the pattern without violating it.

The code looks like this:

Package Model (with setters/getters omitted):

```
public class CA {
    private Integer in;
    private Integer jn;
}

public class CB {
    private Integer kn;
    private Integer ln;
}

public class CC {    
    private static CC instancia;
    private CA a;
    private CB b;

    public static CC getInstancia() {
         if(instancia == null) {
             instancia = new CC();          
         }

         return instancia; 
    }
}

```

Package Business:

```
class CCBusiness {

    static CC c = CC.getInstancia();

    void alter(Integer input) {
        c.getCA.setIn(input);
        Integer num = c.getCB.getLn();
    }
}

```

Package Facade:

```
class FacadeOne {

void methodOne() {
    CCBusiness.alter(1);
    // And more xxBusiness.xx()
}

```

The real code is more complex, but to explain my doubts, I think this should work.

In one facade I call several Business objects, but it is appropriate that one Business (in this case, the one of CC class) can modify attributes from other classes (in this case, the ones inside CC)? Should I create CABusiness and CBBusiness?

Because, what I understand, one Business can't call another Business, so the second as to be parametrized to receive the object from FacadeOne (if I create CABusiness and CBBusiness)?