Honest question here. I agree with the "virtues" of separation, but why do people think this (let's use the Java world for an example) concept seems to be mainly something of interest to "Enterprise" shops. Why don't little guys do things this way? Is it just they don't see the light... or is it more that it is more critical benefit when, as you said, "there are multiple applications to work better together"?
I haven't read all the books and talked to all the religious gurus of encapsulation, heh. Could someone tell me what the current take is on when this is of benefit, or do they just think it is always the right thing to do? Let's say you have a couple of insurance offices and want to move some of your business to a web platform. Your budget is limited... is it reality that something on the level of Mach ii is needed? Should the project be abandoned if you don't have the budget to do it that way? Or could a procedural code that took advantage of well formed objects to separate out the data work very well? (Especially if there were a methodology that guided the creation of simplified procedural applications?) I have heard Steve Nelson argue in favor of procedural applications, while others argued in favor of event oriented object based applications. Currently I am working on code that favors the simplicity of procedural and benefits by the separation of objects. If I were programming in Java... the case could be made for doing it all that way. Yet in CF we have UDFs, Custom Tags and such. It is a different environment. I am in favor of people being "able" to do full object oriented CF development, but still question if the object thrust some give is slanted. (People writing books, basing authority of others writing books. Books that sight examples of poorly written procedural code as examples of why it is wrong is bad logic. And the strengths of procedural code don't eliminate the strengths of object any more than the strengths of object orientation eliminates procedural.) Isn't the actual goal code reuse? What if you use code reuse with custom tags, UDF Libraries, and CFCs... and where the code is not reused build with procedural scripts? (Separating the logic from the content of course...) Thanks, John Farrar SOSensible -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Ingle Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 7:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Separating cohesive applications I agree with Roland, here at our office we have migrated to Mach-ii, and one of the first things we did for all applications was to create a controller cfc that extended mach-ii and intern called the actual working cfc's to do the work (which do not extend mach-ii). The thought here is that it does not matter if we use mach-ii or not, our CFC's are still usable. It is a little extra work up front, but it is well worth it in the end. It really provides a lot more flexibilty in the application, it is also allowing multiple applications to work better together, without being coupled to one another. Ken. ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
