Sean Corfield wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:54:31 -0700, Nathan Dintenfass > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > createUser() method). In other words, the problem crops up > when you want to > > use peer methods (peer in terms of tier). > > Peer to peer method calls are often problematic - if you break an app > down into all of its levels of abstraction, nearly all calls should be > 'down' (toward lower-level code). Any 'up' calls should be viewed with > suspicion. Calls along the same level also need to be looked at > closely to ensure that the level is coherent and implements a > consistent set of responsibilities.
An interesting observation, and one that is amazingly obvious, once it's made. ;) Best of all, it backs up how I did my public/package method pairs, which I have still had minor reservations about. To elaborate a little more, in regards these specifics: The public methods are the top-level methods of the service objects, while the package methods are of slightly lower status. Therefore, the calls from the public methods to the package methods are actually going "down". To take it a step futher, it's the public methods without a package peer, (which actually contain business logic as well as the CFTRANSACTION) that are "bad" design, as it's compressing the two sub-layers within the service layer into a single non-abstracted, non-encapsulated entity. Thanks for the backup Sean, even though that wasn't the intent. Always nice to have sanity checks from those with far greater wisdom come up rosy. Cheers, barneyb ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
