We're sorry. There's a problem with the e-mail address(es) you're trying to send to. Please verify the address(es) and try again. If you continue to have problems, please contact Customer Support at (480) 624-2500.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The e-mail message could not be delivered because there are no users here by that name. --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: (qmail 2472 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2006 23:48:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pre-smtp17-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) ([64.202.166.71]) (envelope-sender <[email protected]>) by smtp08-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 1 Mar 2006 23:48:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 10963 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2006 23:48:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO DWS047.cflib.org) ([199.231.128.19]) (envelope-sender <[email protected]>) by pre-smtp17-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 1 Mar 2006 23:48:14 -0000 Received: from blmail01bos.io.askjeeves.info ([65.214.39.154]) by cflib.org with MailEnable ESMTP; Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:51:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 7441 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2006 23:46:28 -0000 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 1 Mar 2006 23:46:28 -0000 From: Bloglines Bounce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: [CFCDev] Error Precedence: bulk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, There has been an error processing your email. The error is: This email was sent to an invalid address. For the correct email address to submit emails, please visit http://www.bloglines.com and view the My Blogs page. Your request has not been processed. Below is a copy of your original email. The email was originally sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Bloglines Team -- Original Message: Received: (qmail 7431 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2006 23:46:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO DWS047.cflib.org) (199.231.128.19) by 0 with SMTP; 1 Mar 2006 23:46:27 -0000 Received: from smtp03.safesecureweb.com ([65.36.154.50]) by cflib.org with MailEnable ESMTP; Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:51:36 -0500 Received: from mail14.safesecureweb.com (unknown [192.168.2.135]) by smtp03.safesecureweb.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id EA57C2F5F62 for <[email protected]>; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from 68-67-253-41.frdrmd.adelphia.net [68.67.253.41] by mail14.safesecureweb.com with SMTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:52:20 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:45:33 -0500 From: Jason Daiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] DAO vs. Gateway? References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040408040403080403020008" X-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at safesecureweb.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040408040403080403020008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My .02 on the DAO's getting huge is the same response given when Model Glue folks that complain the configuration file that is too long. Use a good editor and you probably won't even notice the size. For me managing 2 small files is a bigger pain than 1 large file. Also, I'm not making any comments on the editor folks are using (obviously since I have no idea what people are using) but I've found the code collapse w/in Eclipse eliminates the big file concern for me. Thus I'm left with the 'keep track of 1 or 2 files' issue and I simply choose 1 approach. I have yet to hear of a design reason why the 2 file approach is better or why a 1 file approach would break the design pattern both approaches strive to achieve. In the end, it seems like personal preference. Now if someone tells me the 1file approach breaks down because of X or breaks a design pattern b/c of Y then I'm all ears. Until then, it's 1 file for me. Peter J. Farrell wrote: > Kurt Wiersma said the following on 3/1/2006 12:52 PM: > >> Like Chris Scott, I have found that the Java convention seems to be >> having all the code in a DAO class. In my CF apps I have found I >> really like having the gateway separate because in Java I have found >> my DAOs get huge with all the different methods that sometimes have to >> be added for reporting purposes. >> >> --Kurt >> > Ditto! Although I don't do any Java developing, I have found that DAO > classes with everything gets unwieldy after a bit of time. Also, I like > the idea of having my DAO access single records, while the Gateway is > one or more. Secondly, typically my DAOs return populated beans while > the Gateways returns cf query objects. > > .Peter > > -- Jason Daiger URL: www.jdaiger.com EML: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------040408040403080403020008 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> My .02 on the DAO's getting huge is the same response given when Model Glue folks that complain the configuration file that is too long. Use a good editor and you probably won't even notice the size. For me managing 2 small files is a bigger pain than 1 large file. Also, I'm not making any comments on the editor folks are using (obviously since I have no idea what people are using) but I've found the code collapse w/in Eclipse eliminates the big file concern for me. Thus I'm left with the 'keep track of 1 or 2 files' issue and I simply choose 1 approach. I have yet to hear of a design reason why the 2 file approach is better or why a 1 file approach would break the design pattern both approaches strive to achieve. In the end, it seems like personal preference. Now if someone tells me the 1file approach breaks down because of X or breaks a design pattern b/c of Y then I'm all ears. Until then, it's 1 file for me.<br> <br> <br> <br> Peter J. Farrell wrote: <blockquote cite="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Kurt Wiersma said the following on 3/1/2006 12:52 PM: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Like Chris Scott, I have found that the Java convention seems to be having all the code in a DAO class. In my CF apps I have found I really like having the gateway separate because in Java I have found my DAOs get huge with all the different methods that sometimes have to be added for reporting purposes. --Kurt </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->Ditto! Although I don't do any Java developing, I have found that DAO classes with everything gets unwieldy after a bit of time. Also, I like the idea of having my DAO access single records, while the Gateway is one or more. Secondly, typically my DAOs return populated beans while the Gateways returns cf query objects. .Peter </pre> </blockquote> <br> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Jason Daiger URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.jdaiger.com";>www.jdaiger.com</a> EML: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</a></pre> </body> </html> ----------------------------------------------------------<BR>You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email.<BR><BR>CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com).<BR><BR>An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] --------------040408040403080403020008-- ---------------------------------------------------------- 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] ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]
