I would differ from Matt on this though: On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Matt Quackenbush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I think it is a bad idea to have CRUDs for multiple tables living in the > same DAO. Does that answer your question? > A DAO is something that lets you persist an *object*. It really shouldn't matter if that "maps" to one database table or 10 database tables. If it takes 10 tables to properly persist your domain object, then the DAO should deal with 10 tables. While it is *common* for an object to map to a single table, this is definitely not mandatory. DAOs exist to "translate" a domain object into some kind of persistence system. The key is to think from the object model back, not from the database forward. That said, I wouldn't put *unrelated* queries into a DAO. It shouldn't just be a dumping ground for random queries. In other words, don't create some "uber-DAO" that tries to do everything. My two cents! Brian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
