On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:54:27 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Cruz > > Sent: Tuesday, 11 January 2005 1:56 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [CFCDev] OO Concept - Crit Welcomed > > > > Looks good, seems to be similar to how the mach-ii.info > > sample code was implemented (not saying if that's good or > > bad, just similar). > > Yeah, I took onboard your sample code and some pattern research and its what > I came up with in the end. Mach-II has some really nice example code and its > execution has a nice element of simplicity behind it... Kudos. >
Did you mean Mach-II.info has some nice sample code? > > > I'm guessing your trying to leave yourself open to using a > > Flash/RIA UI down the road. If you want to invoke the > > service layer via Web services you might check if there are > > any issues passing objects as parameters, i.e. can you > > construct a configBO from Flash and pass it on a WS call. > > Just something to consider. > > Well this is where I differ from most, passing complex coldfusion objects > out of CFMX and into another language like Flash for example, to me isn't > going to wash - in saying that I prefer to use a gateway/fa�ade/service that > flash talks to. It transacts with one another via Array,Structs & maybe > Querys (reason I say maybe as flash in the end converts that queryset into > an array of structs anyway). I prefer to keep the serialized data in those > forms going both ways. > > I also prefer not to expose any requirements/restrictions on WSDL/FLASH as > I'd prefer there be a layer between my model and the service that handles > any conversions / implementation of my business model (ie Flash shouldn't > know that in order to save a blog entry it has to context BlogManager.. All > it cares about is FlashGateway which then handles taking data in, repacking > it if need be and handing it further into the model (if need be). > > Dunno about handing cfmx based objects out and into the unknown, I get weird > feelings in mah belly when that happens! Hehehehehehe. > I agree that for interop via web services you want to avoid passing complex objects. That's why I questioned the configBO. In the Mach-II.info implementation, the service layer was the layer that served both Mach-II and the Flash Client. I went the route of passing things like datasource as simple parameters on each call to the service layer. Are you saying if you want to implement a Flash client you would be implementing another layer/facade other than the service layer you have here? (If so, why?) -Phil ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
