> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 12 July 2007 2:21 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: SURVEY RESULTS: Is ColdFusion OO? > > > 2) simply use type="any" and allow any strategy object to be pass in - > if it doesn't implement the right methods, you'll get a runtime error >
Just musing about how to preserve some of the documentation benefits of typing in the presence of duck-typing. I guess if we stick to short methods (<20 lines) the set of methods required to be implemented by duck-typed arguments is not too hard to work out just by reading the method body. In fact if we wanted to soup up the code introspection I'd think this is something that could be determined automatically by inspecting the CF parse tree. Obviously we couldn't follow the call tree as we don't know which implementation to look at until runtime, but we could at least determine method names and number of arguments. Beyond that, there's still a need to document somewhere central the semantics of each duck-typed method - it's all very well to know that a method will take as an argument any object that implements a setID() method, e.g., but it's important that the caller and implementor share a common world view regarding what an ID is. cfinterface or the abstract superclass technique provides a place to put that documentation, and it would be nice to have a documentation mechanism with no runtime impact that is similarly structured and introspectable. Jaime Metcher ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create Web Applications With ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2. Build powerful, scalable RIAs. Free Trial http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJS Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:283519 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
