Yeah the more I read, the more the argument sways to the setter/getter methods, only I'm yet to find a scenario where manipulating the "this" scope within a CFC would affect an application?
Anyone care to elaborate Scott "Geoff Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > hee hee :) > > If there were an easy answer to this you wouldn't have to ask the > question. This question is debated endlessly. Complete Getter/Setter > methods are considered the correct way to do things but are IMHO > overkill for many applications. You could always implement the > workaround suggested here: > http://markme.com/cantrell/weblog/index.cfm?m=1&d=31&y=2003 > > For what it's worth, I generally avoid direct manipulation of the "this" > scope -- unless you are actually passing back an object as a value or > result at some point there often is no need to use the "this" scope at all. > > -- geoff > http://www.daemon.com.au/ > > Scott Barnes wrote: > > Oooh new buzz word for our dictionaries "encapsulation". > > > > Seriously, I've been reading more and more on Do's / Don'ts of OOP > > programming across C# and Java, and I'm trying to gauge as to whether or not > > accessing instantiated properties or properties within an Object should > > ALWAYS have the setter/getter methods. > > > > i.e. > > <cfscript> > > myObj.monkeyLuva = "true"; > > </cfscript> > > > > as opposed to: > > <cfscript> > > myObj.setMonkeyLuva("true"); > > </cfscript> > > > > Which then fires a method within the object, to set the this.monkeyLuva = > > arguments.sString; > > > > What's peoples thoughts on this, and what would be a general rule of thumb > > when approaching this? especially if you have loads of properties for an > > Object.. > > > > Regards > > Scott Barnes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MX Downunder AsiaPac DevCon - http://mxdu.com/
