>you really don't want to create a deep tree Just wondering how deep the tree would have to be before you would class it as too deep?
>create a maintenance nightmare I dont follow, how does it create a maintenance nightmare? e.g. if I fix a bug/improve something in my generic persistence.cfc, then all of my business objects can use it simply by copying the new cfc file into place. I can see how it would be a nightmare if you changed the interface to the generic cfc. Not sure how thats any more of a nightmare than modifiying all cfcs individually though. >unless you can explain why you think you need the generic base classes erm, to make maintenance and creating new objects easy! (I can create a new object that will do CRUD/validation/form display with one line of code in a component - init(getmetadata(this));) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sean Corfield Sent: 14 April 2005 00:46 To: CFCDev@cfczone.org Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Object helpers, overuse of inheritance? On 4/13/05, Angus Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Initially I thought this was a good thing but now I am beginning to wander > if we should slice off the abstract methods into a 'helper'. (not sure if > that's the right terminology). Yeah, you really don't want to create a deep tree of related objects like that so going with the 'helper' as you call it will be a better idea. > Anyway if I did that I could create a singleton which would sit in > application scope for all objects of the specific type to use. For example > object.cfc would contain a reference to objectHelper.cfc and > businessObject.cfc would also have its own helper. So at the end of the day > my object.cfc and businessObject.cfc would probably only contain properties. > I would think this would have a favourable impact on memory resources? I wouldn't worry about the memory impact so much as the maintenance impact. I would not recommend generic 'object' and 'businessObject' types, to be honest - those imply you'll be inheriting from them which will create a maintenance nightmare for you as well as likely being a poor performer (instantiating deep inheritance trees takes longer than instantiating a simple object). > Is this a good, bad or 'it depends' idea?? As with every OO question, it depends, but from what little information you've given us so far I'd lean heavily toward "it's bad" unless you can explain why you think you need the generic base classes in the first place... -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://fusebox.org/ Got Gmail? -- I have 50, yes 50, invites to give away! "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to cfcdev@cfczone.org with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to cfcdev@cfczone.org with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org
