Peter, Thanks for that very informative reply. I think I will take Patrick and your advice and create two methods, one as saveObject() and the other as saveStruct().
@Patrick - To answer your question, I percieved both methods as ultimately doing the same thing (persisting an object) and didn't think having two methods was a good design choice. However, I think I can live with saveStruct() as a second method since it does represent a concrete difference between the two methods. Thanks, Aaron On 4/24/07, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1, I support both approaches, but one is saving an object so I call it saveObject(Object: object) and the other is saveStruct(Struct: struct, PropertyNameList: string). In the first I'm taking a well formed object and depending on my implementation either asking it to save itself or asking it for its properties and looping through them using a getter to build the appropriate insert or update SQL. In the second I call a factory for a new object (encapsulated via ObjectService.new()), then I Object.loadStruct() and then I call saveObject() on the object I just loaded. I definitely see two different intents and methods as being appropriate here. Best Wishes, Peter On 4/24/07 8:53 PM, "Patrick McElhaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why do you need method overloading? Why can't you just have two different methods with different names? It looks like the methods aren't really doing the same thing anyway. The first takes an existing object and saves it. The second creates a new object and saves it. Patrick
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]
