I responded to the Original posting on the Transfer list. Since it seems there is more activity here, I'll repost.
I need an opinion on the whole idea of model components that are named after > a table and have properties that exactly match the tables column names? > It can be a good idea if your business objects exactly relate to your database tables. This can mean a lot less code to write! However, unless you are building very simple administration screens, this is pretty much never the case. A relational database is the best, optimized way to store and retrieve information. Proper database design relies on 3rd normal form, among other things, to guide the structure and contents of each database table. A business object, on the other hand, really has nothing to do with database structure or normalized forms of any kind. Business objects really are self contained structures that contain logic and data that represent the Proper Nouns in your application. Applications with objects modeled after true business objects are easier to maintain, understand and build. Applications with objects directly modeled on database tables are fragile, cumbersome and fail to scale in complexity. So, modeling your business objects as direct representations of your persistence tables, is a very poor idea indeed. DW --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
