On 10/24/07, Jonathon Stierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My plan is to have a generic modify page that I can pass in the DAO, and > then the page would automatically create the correct form fields. I could > probably use Transfer to make this work (there does seem to be a bit of > meta-data stored in TransferObjects), I'd prefer to roll something up > inhouse than be speed-dialing Mark everytime I wonder if Transfer does > something ;) Yep, I'm commiting the sin of re-inventing the wheel... or at > least parts of it.
There is also doco and a good google group as well, so you don't have to speed dial me ;o) > > For Transfer improvements: > One thing that I thought would be included in Transfer is some basic > many-to-many selects. If I remember correctly, TransferObjects don't come > with a method to get all the joining records in a Many-To-Many relationship. > I did a search on the Google Groups for this last week (which I sadly can't > find now), and I found a post where it was deemed out of scope for Transfer > -- it fit more in a Gateway than a DAO, was the argument. Umn... you can setup composite object relationships across manytomany, and have been able to since version 0.1... so I'm not sure what you mean there. If you want to query it, you can also do it with TQL.. which can auto join your m2m relationships for you as well... so not sure what you need there? > > I still haven't "seen the light" when it comes to splitting those two types > (Gateways & DAOs) apart. I haven't come across any reason to split them up > yet. Nothing says you 'have to' with Transfer. Often I just mean 'gateway code' as a shorthand way of saying 'roll your own SQL and get a query'. > This final part is nit-picking, but Transfer is still technically a "beta", > is it not? I noticed the version number is .0.6.3. I know tons of people > are using it in their live applications, and it seemed to work perfectly for > me in my test environment, but there is a little stigma about using beta > apps on live servers with the higher-ups. Yes, you can say that Transfer is still in beta - but there is a serious flaw in the logic here. You're higher ups are willing to spend serious $$$ on your developing something from scratch, which will only ever be tested by you (and / or you team mates), when they can use something that has already been built, has an active development plan they don't have to pay for, has over 200 members in the google group, and has been actively tested and used by more people than can possibly be in your development team at any given time (assumption there of course)... Obviously, I don't really mind if you don't want to use Transfer (or any other persistence framework) ;o), it may well not fit your needs, but I just think the logic is a bit skewed. Sounds a little like Not Invented Here syndrome ;o) Mark -- E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: www.compoundtheory.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade to ColdFusion 8 and integrate with Adobe Flex http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:291901 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
