Thank you for a more "pointed" response. I still find you tend to be puffed up... your twenty five years give you more experience than me, granted. I should and do consider the things you say. Yet, I require proof. It is my understanding that for you to reject your stance on encapsulation, you gentlemen also require proof. The only thing I debate is your "extreme" application of the rule. Those who chided my original solution did not consider it on the basis of application, but on a single virtue. Many of you (including Sean on his blog... is this right) have made political statements that chide people who shut down different views. My view isn't greatly different from yours, it just doesn't "support yours".
IN CONCLUSION... 1. Yes, my solution violates the "common DEFINITION of encapsulation". But defining something fails proof of true application, that is my point on critical reasoning. (If the majority of the country votes for or against gay marriage, does that make it right or wrong?... don't answer... my point is majority experience and thinking isn't a basis of truth.) 2. If any one has experience, it is valid. If someone has more he has more resources to evaluate things... but that doesn't mean he is using his resources, therefore it is justified for others to require the knowledge be supported with research rather than social grouping or time in service. (Note: else, you couldn't have been right when you came to the conclusions, because there were people with more time in service than you in engineering who used to disagree.) 3. If anyone (including myself) says something is bad practice or "a violation"... they can be socially expected to follow up with justification of the statement... not required, but it is justified for the party indicted to demand the statement be clarified... rather than just defined. 4. Do any of you have a "pure example of encapsulation". (Definition... heh ... A full system of components where each member (software, electronics, etc.) that is expandable, adaptable but only self aware. (Don't head to biological... then we would have to debate if God was real... and I know we don't all want to go there! Let's avoid that strife since it would be WAY OT!) 5. Encapsulation is one of a bag of virtues. It has it's reasons and applications. Yet it is not, as has been said here, a virtue unto itself. Bottom line is my bag mixes the strengths of concepts differently. Some of you wouldn't do it that way... OK, don't. But I don't chide you for doing it differently than me. That would be excessively self engratiating. Let us be mature (like Seans post here failed to do..." atrocities!"... I guess we will have to start calling Sean an "Extreme Fundamentalist"! First you say... " It may be a "most" rule, be that 99% or 95% or 90% or 80% or..." then you say... " You'll never work for me so it really doesn't matter if you want to commit such atrocities!" You are using your status to chide me, and that is immoral in any society!) 6. Sean... if I did work for you... I would follow your rules of good programming as closely as I could. I would still be creative. I don't believe that your concept totally destroys creativity, just puts blinders on the horse for the race in your mind. Which might be a good thing! I respect your knowledge... just not your extreme fundamentalist closed mind on the topic. If you think different... then say you do... but don't put me down because I don't worship your greater knowledge. Don't list of the "who's who" and claim it is a point because they say so also. (Otherwise, since Bush is our president, or Clinton when he was... all his ethics become right because they have more political experience than anyone in this group! That reasoning is absurd.) Therefore, I again do use nearly 100% encapsulation. But the definition is a framework of thinking to apply practice rather than being a prison to control my creativity! If not being a prison to the geek society rules makes me strange... I can remember when it wasn't cool to be a geek also! Thanks for all the input... I have found this stimulating and entertaining as the GURUs have put me to the task. It even caused me to reconsider my application. I still think storing UDFs in request scope in (manually because of CF limitations) protected variable space is good. John Farrar -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Corfield Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 3:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Function Libraries On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:43:39 -0400, John D Farrar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Further more... I think Sean's thoughts about encapsulation are "mostly" > correct. Well, gee, thank you John... Glad I've learned something from my twenty five years of software engineering... > My debate is the thinking that it is an "absolute rule". No one ever said it was an absolute rule. Good grief, one of my sigs is Thomas Sowell's comment that "There are no solutions, only trade offs"! It may be a "most" rule, be that 99% or 95% or 90% or 80% or... > I am not > likely to agree that calling a cgi variable inside a CFC is a violation of > good code. Which is exactly why trying to argue with you is somewhat pointless - you have made it very clear that no matter how many people tell you this is bad practice and no matter how many references they provide, you simply won't accept that. Fine. Do it your way. You'll never work for me so it really doesn't matter if you want to commit such atrocities! :) > Sean supported the point by saying it violated encapsulation. It violates encapsulation *by definition* since it means your CFC is reaching outside of itself. That isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. The question is simply whether such a violation of encapsulation matters to someone. Clearly it doesn't matter to you but equally clearly it does matter to me, Dave Ross, Barney and others. > So... do you think they should have stopped at windows 95? Windows NT? Which > version would have been good enough for you? None of them were ever good enough for me (and I started with Windows 3.1!). -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ "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 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]
