Thanks for the tip about the UML CASE tool, but I'm highly suspicious of code generators (unless I wrote the code generator).
CFC's don't need to be super complicated before you can easily have a hundred or so methods. That's too many to keep in my brain at once. I'm surprised that you wrap single database tables by single cfc's. There's a huge mis-match between relational data and object orientated data. I struggle to find a one-to-one correspondence between objects and database tables. I typically write "manager" objects to deal with the issues. Even then some of the code is a little ugly. We denormalise our databases. Database access is always the bottleneck in our apps, so we can achieve major performance improvements by optimising database access. This is the main reason why we can't wrap single database tables by single cfc's. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sean A Corfield Sent: Tuesday, 5 August 2003 13:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] IDE's On Monday, Aug 4, 2003, at 01:09 US/Pacific, Rod Buchan wrote: > Has anyone used Eclipse or IntelliJ? They make writing OO code easy. If you use a UML CASE tool with round-trip codegen then you'll *really* find it easy to write Java since you can *visually* refactor your design and the tool rearranges the code to match. TogetherSoft's Control Center is about the best example of this (now owned by Borland). > I've been using these IDE's to learn Java and have come to the > conclusion > that the hardest thing about writing CFC's is the lack of an IDE with > these > features. As soon as the cfc's become complex, I find it difficult to > keep > track of method/property names. You must have some pretty complicated CFCs :) > It's almost impossible to refactor something > without making many mistakes. Support for refactoring in IDEs is still relatively new but, yes, it can be a big help. > Something as trivial as adding a field to a > database means a long trek through all the associated cfc's looking > for code > where it may need to be added. I would argue that a well-designed set of CFCs should make it easy to locate the CFC that wraps a particular database table (and I would say it should be fairly rare that a single table 'bleeds' into multiple CFCs unless some denormalization and / or joins are being optimized). Just my opinion. > Does anyone know if MM intend to produce an IDE that helps coders to > write > CFC's the way that Eclipse and IntelliJ help Java coders? It's an interesting thought... right now, the vast majority of CFers are still only just getting their heads around CFCs as far as I can tell. Couple that with the fact that many CFers still don't want to convert from ColdFusion Studio aka HomeSite+ over to Dreamweaver MX. If any such machinery was added to a Macromedia product, it would likely go in DWMX but, although I've seen one or two user requests for such a thing, I suspect that sufficient demand to justify that investment is still a long way off. You are, of course, welcome to submit your request via the DWMX wishlist submission form! Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
