Thanks to all who have suggestions on the how to structure cfcs for
validation/authentication.

Various responses below:

To Jamie:  Thanks for the input.  When I start handling larger forms,
I'll determine whether this is a robust (enough) solution. 

To Mr. Bell: "User.authenticate()" looks very ActiveRecord to me (which
I am not using).  I'll hazzard a guess that User (as a transient) has
UserDAO "LightWired" into it. ;-)

To Aaron: Clever idea, using a validator object.  I wonder what it would
take to write a method interceptor using Colspings aop to wrap that?
Validation as a cross-cutting concern? (Yes, I'm woolgathering...)

To Mr. Farrell:  This is what I'm concerned about. Having to overhaul my
design because of increased complexity.

To Nando: I'm sure I'll roll it a couple of different ways until it
feels right.

Thanks, again!

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter J.
Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CFCDEV] Where should I validate form submissions?

Nando said the following on 2/28/2007 4:32 PM:
> Why shouldn't a user know how to validate it's own data?
To me it depends on how much you need to validate your bean.  We have
some pretty complex validation routines in one our applications.  We
needed access to UDFs, which felt dirty to inject in the bean (I know
that Peter Bell would disagree), manage UDFs inside the bean or use
cfinclude (could cause namespace issues).  We also sometimes have to do
more complex things -- like checking if the password meets our
requirements -- all the normal stuff plus things like not allowing
stupid words like first/last name, email address or current user name. 
All of this requires access to things external to the bean -- this of
course is overly simplified for illustration purposes in this email.  So
after a while, letting the bean know how to validate itself became
unreasonable for us.  In the end, we don't mind that our beans are very
stupid and a bit anemic.  Those are my two cents and I'm sure in the
future I'll have more to say.
> Maybe you could try both approaches and see which you like better?
Most definitely.  Trying is the only way you learn otherwise we can
debate this forever! ;-)

.Peter

--
Peter J. Farrell - Maestro Publishing
http://blog.maestropublishing.com
--
Co-Host of the ColdFusion Weekly Podcast http://www.coldfusionweekly.com






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]

Reply via email to