Just those that really need one. Generally I find I can set them together upon object creation, and only some of them will be changing at points after object creation.
BTW yes I agree with you. Seems like too much abstraction to me personally. Why not use cfinsert and cfupdate? Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Chesty Puller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 11:56 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: B-E-A-UTIFUL! > > > That means you agree with me, doesn't it? > > Question for you - do you have a getter and setter for every > property of an > object, or just those that really need one? > > - Matt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Loathe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 11:53 AM > Subject: RE: B-E-A-UTIFUL! > > > >I prefer data access objects, specific getters and setters as part of my > > object. > > > > By specifying columns and datatypes and so on, you get better performing > > queies. > > > > Tim > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Chesty Puller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 10:30 AM > >> To: CF-Community > >> Subject: Re: B-E-A-UTIFUL! > >> > >> > >> Not that I doubt that it is indeed spiffy, how in fact is it > so? I don't > >> understand why this complex-looking piece of sql abstraction is an > >> improvement over either standard SQL or the object-relational database > >> mapping scheme > >> > >> This is Issac's - I think it's more difficult to understand > than classic > >> SQL. Not bad, but not really an improvement - all of the fields in the > >> table are returned, right? > >> > >> ds = request.tapi.getObject("datasource") > >> statement = ds.getStatement("select").init("mytable") > >> qry = statement.filter("X",x,"=").filter("Y",y,"=").execute() > >> > >> > >> I think I'd rather do something like: > >> > >> object = objectmapper.get(objectid) > >> > >> which replaces > >> > >> select > >> objectid, objectproperty1, objectproperty2, objectproperty3 > >> from > >> table > >> where > >> objectid = #objectid# > >> > >> Even better, the programmer can further abstract the use of > the query by > >> adding parameters to the get method of the objectmapper class. > >> This way you > >> end up with a complete class in and out of the database. You > >> don't write a > >> lot of queries over and over, you don't find new ways to join > the data in > >> the db (unless you're doing reporting, which is a different subject > >> altogether), and you use classic OOP for code readability, > >> maintenence and > >> reuse. > >> > >> Anyway, my question is, exactly why is Issac's code spiffy? > >> > >> - Matt > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "William Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 10:06 AM > >> Subject: Re: B-E-A-UTIFUL! > >> > >> > >> >> Everyone else just ignored you. :-p > >> > > >> > Bah! Not ignoring! Just trying to figure out how I can use this! > >> > > >> > it is indeed "damn spiffy code." > >> > > >> > will > >> > -- > >> > > >> > "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; > >> > and that would just be unacceptable." > >> > - Carrie Fisher > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:195679 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
