Re: [CFCDev] CFSQLTool debate

[Peter J. Farrell]

Patrick McElhaney wrote: On 10/28/05, Matt Woodward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't understand what was wrong with simpler text-based formats, such as the java properties file and windows ini file. I thought that a config file should only specify details; it should not implement business logic. And I thought that's why config file formats tended to be so constrained. The idea of an eXtensible format for config files seems backwards to me. If we were dealing with simple properties files I'd agree with you, but we're not. In the case of Mach-II the XML file is a controller file (as it is with numerous other frameworks even outside the CF world), it isn't just simple name/value pairs, and using XML is perfect for this purpose. I've struggled with Mach-II. I find the config file terribly difficult to understand. Really, it's not so terribly difficult.  Since M2 relies on a lot of OO processes, you sorta have to learn basic OO first.  Mach-II isn't what is hard - it's the concepts behind the framework.  A little over a year ago, I went from procedural CF to "OO" CF (Mach-II).  During this time, I've spent many days wanting to hit my head against the wall.  I've been working with Mach-II for over a year now and I'll be the first to admit that I didn't fully understand the event queue process until about 2 months ago.  Sometimes I have still take a double take if I need to use a filter for something or should I just stick it in my listener. The problem is that to use M2 efficiently and effectively - you need to understand some (or a lot - depending on your POV) OO.  Here's the rub - we can document Mach-II what the wah- zoo here, however we have to draw the line in the sand on what can we effectively say is the minimum knowledge of the developer wanting to use M2?  If I have to assume no knowledge, honestly - I should start another training program.  Framework documentation cannot take the place of learning OO. I think there must be an easier way to do what Mach-II does with a config file. For example, why doesn't Mach-II just expose an API so that I can control the application with a .cfm file? Because we would end up with Fusebox 3 again - a big switch/case file and we would loose the ability of a dynamic event queue.  Trust me - the config file seems "stupid" at first, but in the end - very smart. -- Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing http://blog.maestropublishing.com Rooibos Generator - Version 2.1 Create boilerplate beans and transfer objects for ColdFusion for free! http://rooibos.maestropublishing.com/ Member Team Mach-II - It's coming...we're in a code freeze! ---------------------------------------------------------- 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). 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/cfcdev@cfczone.org