Yes, this is akin to magic numbers (which are bad). There is no way to
tell that servertype 1 means "production" or even that it doesn't refer
to something like web, file, or print server.
It would have even been better just to make the column a string type and
just put "production" and such in there, I think in this case. In
general I'd probably put it in another table and have it refer to that
if it can change, but for a simple application, I probably wouldn't bother.
-Sam
Jim Cassata wrote, On 2/20/2007 12:13 PM:
while on the "subject" of best practice, I have a question re CFC practice.
In the days I made my app, I have a table (simplified) that lists IT servers.
Looks kinda like this:
serverid | servername | servertype |
1 | win01 | 1 |
3 | win09 | 2 |
2 | win06 | 3 |
Now server type was just 1=production, 2=dev, 3=test.
And as such no servertype table was ever made, I just had the cfml convert the
number to name in the cfm pages, like this:
Server Type: <cfswitch... </cfswitch>
Is this a bad practice? am wondering if this way of handling information is too much
"putting business logic into presentation layer" Might I find out in Flex that
I can't display the server type text after retrieving a query result?
Thanks all, enjoying the dialog very much!
Jim C
----- Original Message ----
From: Marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:55:26 AM
Subject: RE: [CFCDEV] CFC best practice (was ROI;)
I am smack in the middle of the Head First OOA&D book right now, reading it
rather closely (but not doing the exercises yet... Shame on me!).
I can say this book is definitely one to have, although I don't 100% agree
with their approach to discovering requirements. I'd say I actually agree to
only about 50% of their requirements gathering approach... But it could be
that they took their particular route in order not to turn the book into a
Head First Project Management book of some sort. ;)
The actual process of working through what constitutes a class and when and
where you might consider creating new classes or not is actually presented
very well; it's definitely one that I welcome, right next to my Head First
Design Patterns, Head First HTML/CSS/XHTML, Head First Java, and Head First
JSP and Servlets! :)
Marc
> Behalf Of Peter Bell
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:31 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [CFCDEV] CFC best practice (was ROI;)
>
> Head first design patterns much easier than GoF and
> also includes basics from polymorphism on up. While I'd
> assumed OOA&D book would be the basics, my experience
> was that it was more intermediate, although I was in a
> rush when I skimmed it and haven't had a chance to get
> back to it yet for a proper read. It even says
> somewhere that it is for people who can already do OO
> programming and is moving you to next level to help
> with analysis and design . . .
>
> Best Wishes,
> Peter
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at
http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm
CFCDev is supported by:
Katapult Media, Inc.
We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock!
www.katapultmedia.com
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at
http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm
CFCDev is supported by:
Katapult Media, Inc.
We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock!
www.katapultmedia.com
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at
http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm
CFCDev is supported by:
Katapult Media, Inc.
We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock!
www.katapultmedia.com
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
