You've got one thing backwards, subclasses would need to be at the
same level or HIGHER than the class they're extending. Other than
that, it sounds reasonable.
However, there's absolutely no reason that any hosting environment
(dedicated, shared, mass hosted, whatever) shouldn't give each
individual website at least one mapping, so I'd say you're better off
with a build process that'll do a substitution of that mapping at
install time. So you're code would be say
extends="${cfcRoot}package.cfc", or whatever, and then at install
time, you run the build script and it subs out ${cfcRoot} with the
appropriate value.
I'm also kind of curious. How large of applications are being mass
hosted like this, and need to have the ability to play nice with
myriad other apps (both the same code and different)? It seems to me
that the apps large and complex enough to really benefit from a
massively OO backend probably aren't the kinds of apps that get
deployed a bunch of times to shared servers.
cheers,
barneyb
On 9/10/05, Nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Kerry's post about using a GatewayFactory got me thinking about factories in
> general, and i wanted to float an idea out here and see what some of you
> smarter, more experienced OO'ers think.
>
> One of the practical problems some of us run across in using CFC's rather
> intensively in our distributed apps, one's we're building to sell multiple
> times, is that mappings cannot be set on an individual application - they
> are server wide. So to have more than one instance of an app on a server
> puts you through some gymnastics. Either you have to search and replace the
> mapping name in your CFC's and test each individual app carefully for any
> errors (and carefully maintain all those variations!), or you need to put
> them in separate server instances ... or you just can't use mappings, which
> tends to tie you down.
>
> Now let's say that we design our app as Kerry suggests, so that on
> application start, a Factory is instantiated into application scope from
> Application.cfc or Application.cfm. All object instances in the application
> are created by Factory (or it's composed child Factory classes if you want
> to break the responsibilities up, as you probably should).
>
> Now, as long as your CFC's are in the same directory as Factory or lower,
> the singleton instance of application.Factory should have no problem finding
> them, instantiating them, and returning them without a mapping. Going down
> the directory tree works, it's just going up where you run into problems.
> The only limitation i can think of is that components that employ an
> inheritance relationship would need to be in the same directory or the child
> would need to be lower. Composition, no matter how the objects are in
> relation to each other, could be handled by application.Factory (you'd pass
> in a reference of application.Factory, actually you'd pass in "this" when
> instantiating parent components and use Factory to instantiate the
> children).
>
> Anyone see any holes or limitations one would run across down the line with
> this approach?
>
>
--
Barney Boisvert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
360.319.6145
http://www.barneyb.com/
Got Gmail? I have 100 invites.
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
[email protected] 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).
CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon
http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
