Hi Dan, Well, I have something that just works for me because I question my methodology all the time! I do agree though that in all communities (including Java, Python, PHP, etc) OO (and design patterns like MVC) can become "cargo cult programming". That was really what my RAD OO presentation was about - examples of where breaking the conventional wisdom was an appropriate choice given the design forces for a given use case. I still love that I'm breaking MVC in two different ways and it's working quite nicely for my use case.
Best Wishes, Peter On Jun 24, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Dan Vega wrote: > At the same time you have something that just "works" for you Peter. > I think what concerns me is on top of what Hal and even Adam said. > People are doing things because that seems to be what everyone else > is doing. If it works for you and you are productive and you don't > find yourself questioning your methodology that is all that matters > at the end of the day. > > Thank You > Dan Vega > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.danvega.org > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > I find the OO still helps for data mapping even in fairly simple, > data centtric apps. I love to be able to ask for User.FirstName, > User.LastName, Boss.Title and Auctions.TotalSpent and get that > without having to write the left outer joins and aggregates by hand. > But maybe that's just beause I suck at SQL :-) > > Its also nice to be able to Order.getAssociated("Items") or > Author.getAssociated("Articles") - I find that stuff is just nice. > > Best Wishes, > Peter > > > On Jun 24, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Dan Vega wrote: > >> I think Sean brings up a really great point here. In very data >> centric applications (bunch of forms and reports) a light mvc >> pattern to help seperate your model and view might be all you need. >> Maybe only certain features will follow a pattern. Its your job to >> learn the patterns and as Sean said always be mindful of them. >> >> "if you have a very data-centric app with almost >> no "behavior" (i.e., it's almost pure data entry or pure reporting) >> then OO might be a waste of time for you - or maybe only parts of the >> app will benefit from OO, perhaps at a very high level in the service >> layer." >> >> Thank You >> Dan Vega >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://www.danvega.org >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Peter Bell >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Thats why I tend to prefer code gen/frameworks that start with a >> description of the model and then gen any persistence required if >> your use case (read no DBA and a green field app) allows it. >> >> Best Wishes, >> Peter >> >> >> On Jun 24, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Brian Kotek wrote: >> >>> This is caused in a large part by the code generators that >>> introspect the database and generate CFCs. While those can be >>> great time saving tools, the reality is that most people just take >>> what gets generated and then run with it without thinking further >>> about what they're doing. >>> >>> This is why we get people with 5 CFCs for every single table in >>> their database, and why people think that just because they're >>> following these "patterns" (bean, DAO, etc.) that they are doing >>> OOP. If everything is data-centric and there is no actual behavior >>> in the objects, then all one really has is a totally procedural, >>> data-centric application that has been shoved into CFCs. It really >>> ends up being the worst of both worlds: all the complexity of OO >>> with none of the benefits. >>> >>> Hal is completely correct that we need to get away from the >>> fixation on data or slavishly following patterns without really >>> understanding the tradeoffs involved. Each pattern has >>> consequences, and not all of them are good. The unfortunate >>> reality is that truly groking OOP takes a long time and a major >>> shift in mindset. There's no easy route to getting there, but one >>> route that is probably among the most difficult is to blindly >>> apply patterns or let code generators "do the work" without truly >>> understanding what's going on or why these patterns exist. >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Dan Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Adam, >>> I am sure you going to hear some slack for that but I am huge fan >>> of what you just said. In Hal Helm's presentation he noted that we >>> really need to quite being so data centric when thinking of OO >>> development. MVC is a great start for people to solve a specific >>> problem but everyone really needs to stop following everyone and >>> thinking that 5 cfcs are OO development. I am doing a lot of >>> research at the moment about OO in other languages and hope to >>> share my findings soon. >>> >>> Thank You >>> Dan Vega >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://www.danvega.org >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Adam Haskell >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> At the end of the day we all need to stop talking about DOA and >>> Gateways and all this Database crap as much as we do. Its old, >>> trite, and quite honestly doesn't make a hill of beans difference >>> most of the time. Honestly, ask yourself, "How many applications >>> would I have been completely screwed if I chose to split my >>> gateway and DAO up, or vice versa?" If you have a use case for >>> that please by all means share it I'd love to hear it. If all we >>> are concerned about is DAO or gateway then chances are something >>> else, much more important, is being overlooked (not pointing >>> fingers at anyone here :) ). If all you are doing is a large >>> reporting app chances are you don't need to be doing complete OO >>> anyway, yes I know sacrilege. Its true though ColdFusion is >>> perfect for reporting without the heavy OO we try to apply to it >>> in too many cases. Thinking back through some of the reporting >>> apps I did and shoehorning them into an OO architecture I can >>> confidently say I should have stuck with a light version of MVC >>> and moved on. >>> >>> Adam Haskell >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
