> Raymond says: > > [quote] > The method I use is to instantiate (in the application.cfm) a > "DP_PersistenceInfo" CFC - this CFC contains all of the > properties related to a specific datasource. This CFC is > added to a special "DP_Application" > CFC which is, itself, stored in the Application scope. > [/quote] > > Isn't this conceptually the same thing as using a shared scope? How > is putting the persistence variables such as datasource name > in a persistence.cfc different from putting those same > variables in application variables? Doesnt that create the > same dependencies?
Without having read Raymond's quote in context, I can't say for sure, but I would expect that Ray actually passes in the name of the method of the persistence CFC as an argument to other CFCs that need persistence data. That would achieve the loose coupling that you generally want when you write objects. However, just because loose coupling is a valuable goal in most cases, that doesn't mean that you always have to go that way. If you feel comfortable bypassing that within your own applications, you often won't have any problems. It's when applications become larger, and maintained by more people, that you really start to see a payoff from a stricter application of OO principles, I think. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ phone: 202-797-5496 fax: 202-797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=34 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:183034 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
