If the getters and setters are so easy to script up then they shouldn't be there in the first place. Using getters and setters is a debatable practice to being with, but when you throw code generation into the mix the practice is surely bad; some would even say the practice is evil.
-Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Ken Dunnington > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Beans: Explicit vs Implicit arguments? > > Thanks, Barney, that was such a great idea I went ahead and whipped up > a script to do just that! It lets you choose the database and table, > and then lets you decide what data types to use, set required and > default attributes (as well as name) and then spits out a ready made > CFC bean! You just saved me countless hours of typing. :) If anybody > would like a copy of this script, let me know and I'd be happy to > share. > > - Ken > > On Jul 12, 2004, at 3:40 PM, Barney Boisvert wrote: > > > I started down the same route, and it works pretty well. I opted to > > throw > > exceptions if you get or set an invalid property, but it generally > > works > > quite well. > > > > However, once I built a tool that will auto-generate my CFCs for me > > based on > > a schema (currently read from the DB, though it could come from > > anywhere), > > building all those getters and setters was irrelevant, because I just > > let CF > > do it for me. > > > > If mindless repetition of code is the stumbling block for actually > > using > > beans, that's something that can definitely be beaten by the computer. > > Sure, it requires a little development that appears "non-productive", > > but it > > really is worth it. > > > > Cheers, > > barneyb > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Dunnington > >> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 11:46 AM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: [CFCDev] Beans: Explicit vs Implicit arguments? > >> > >> I am trying to get into Mach-ii and just read Ben Edwards' article > >> about using Beans. I have been using for some time a method of data > >> encapsulation that relies on implicit arguments. In my CFC I > >> declare an > >> instance struct within the variables scope - nothing new > >> there. Then I > >> have two functions, get(string varName) and set(string > >> varName, string > >> varValue) which search the instance scope for the variable requested. > >> If it does not exist, get returns an empty string, while set creates > >> the variable and assigns it the given value. This has worked well for > >> rapid application development (I am the only CF/database developer at > >> my company, so I develop application code alongside > >> developing database > >> schemas.) but I know it's not really a best practice. My question is, > >> what is the general consensus concerning the use of beans, with their > >> strict rules of getters and setters, and what are people's > >> thoughts on > >> my method? It has definitely saved me time, with only a few small > >> caveats (dealing with undefined numeric values, for example.) > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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] > >> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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] ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]
