Peter, Just like you I am always questioning myself. I wish to be writing much cleaner more efficient & scalable applications so that is my real reason for posing these questions & sharing my beliefs. So far so good, this is some good stuff!
Thank You Dan Vega [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danvega.org On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
