> You would never dream (normally) of having an entity (hence table) to
> model a collection of items
Perhaps that's why I wasn't seeing what he meant. I'm so used to
objects being over here and relational stuff being over there that I
didn't see a conflict.
> would be, I would normally define the parent object to contain a
> collection of the child objects. But I wouldn't design a special
> object to model that collection, I'd just use a built-in class.
Hmm. I generally would have taken a generic linked-list, added some
neat features, and declared it a new object type. But point taken.
I guess it's all in how you are trying to think about it.
> But to be honest, if I was using CF, OO design methodology would not be at
> the forefront of my mind.
Me neither, at the moment. While I was very excited at first, and am
still interested in, OO in CF, until they iron out the wrinkles in true
OO implementation, it's going to be hard to do it right and complete.
--Ben Doom
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
