> Hey! "It depends" is *my* catchphrase! Whoops. ;)
> I haven't looked at Reactor much. In a nutshell, it generates persitance code into a CFC on the filesystem that you can extend to add your application logic. Change your schema, and it can rewrite the persistance code without affecting the stuff you added manually. I actually wrote a CMS around a similar concept last spring, and it proved very performant. No runtime difference between it and manually coding everything, but a heck of a lot easier to do both initial coding and maintenance. It also lets you fudge the design phase a little bit (useful if you have clients who don't know what they want), because adding new properties is such a snap. > Those are both > quick ways to build standard CRUD apps against a database. I would not > expect those to scale. Why not? Just as scalable as anything else, unless you're tuning your persistance operations for the specific application's execution profile, in which case you HAVE to hand code it. And it's trivial to augment any persistance handling mechanism with caching of various levels of aggressiveness to negate any performance issues. Especially if you can assume that you're the only thing touching the database. > And then there's the whole issue of driving an > app from the database (as opposed to designing an efficient database > schema to persist your well-designed object model). Yeah, I hear you on this one. That CMS I referred to was actually constructed model-down, rather than DB-up. Build your CFCs, and then the generator would introspect them to create the appropriate tables (transparently dealing with inheritance and all that fun stuff). Still not as good as constructing each one independantly and then mapping them as in a "real" ORM solution, but the dev time savings is very significant if you don't need to squeeze every drop of performance out of your DB. I'm not going to speculate on percentages, but I'd wager that just about any app whose DB and code are built at the same time doesn't have to be perfectly performant on initial release, leaving room for tuning on either side over time. Bottom line, I think persistance code is one thing in an app that a machine can very easily do for you, and the advantages WAY outweight the disadvantages in most situations. I.e. scalable 'enough'. Like anything else, you'll never get perfection, only good enough, where enough depends on the scenario. cheers, barneyb -- 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). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
