Sean Corfield, in the nicest possible way, said that if the lack of static or class methods was giving me problems then my application design or my understanding of OO (or both) were faulty. Fair enough. Still trying to work out how to fix that.
With reference to Hal Helms' "vision" article (http://www.fusionauthority.com/Views/4649-A-New-Vision-for-ColdFusion.htm), the part I don't get is - how is the "class object" workaround described in part II more in keeping with CF as a lightweight language than adding class methods and variables would be? Funnily enough, I've had to delve into some "heavyweight" OO practices (singleton pattern, dependency injection, factory methods) to get what is, in all of those "heavyweight" OO languages, an absolute basic - the notion that a "class" is both a fully-fledged object and an inherent property of every instance. (OK, maybe Java classes aren't fully fledged - they have encapsulation and polymorphism, but not inheritance). Is Hal's point that if you need to solve these sorts of problems, don't use ColdFusion? Or maybe (Sean's point), I actually don't need to solve these sorts of problems and if I understood design better I'd realize that. That's it - there is no part IV. Thoughts? Jaime Metcher You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm CFCDev is supported by: Katapult Media, Inc. We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock! www.katapultmedia.com An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
