Thanks, I appreciate the insight Barney! Thank You Dan Vega [email protected] http://www.danvega.org
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Barney Boisvert <[email protected]> wrote: > > No performance implications that I know of. It's the same code, just > a question of where it lives. And yes, it is very easy, which is why > Rails (and Grails) adopted it. > > After you get your app built, try adding some audit logging to > persistence operations. With persistence mixed into your entities, > you'd hosed. So like scaffolding, it's excellent for getting up and > running quick, but not necessarily a viable long term solution. > > cheers, > barneyb > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Dan Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are there any performance concerns with the active record approach? It > just > > all seems very easy to me which is why I like it. > > > > 1.) model your domain > > 2.) create your controller > > 3.) mixin any services needed > > 4.) view talks to controller > > 5.) data is persisted auto majically :) > > > > Thank You > > Dan Vega > > [email protected] > > http://www.danvega.org > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Barney Boisvert <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Yeah, in general. Among other benefits, it lets your domain entities > >> not be coupled to any Grails classes. And if you want to go for > >> broke, they don't need to be coupled to Hibernate either. Or even JPA > >> if you're a glutton for pain. > >> > >> cheers, > >> barneyb > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Dan Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I got ya. So you would rather do something like > >> > > >> > user = new User(); > >> > user.name = "dan" > >> > > >> > UserService.save(user) > >> > > >> > Thank You > >> > Dan Vega > >> > [email protected] > >> > http://www.danvega.org > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Barney Boisvert <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I love Hibernate, I just don't like the ActiveRecord pattern, where > >> >> your entities have the persistence operations on them directly, > >> >> instead of separated into DAOs. For example, with ActiveRecord you > >> >> have this: > >> >> > >> >> u = new User() > >> >> u.name = 'barney' > >> >> u.save() > >> >> > >> >> The User type shouldn't know about persistence operations, in my > >> >> opinion. Hibernate doesn't care where the persistence code lives, > >> >> just that it's configured correctly. Grails (following Rails' model) > >> >> puts it on the entities (the ActiveRecord pattern). Like I said, I > >> >> works just dandy, but it feels wrong, and can lead you into some > weird > >> >> issues with transaction demarcation (among other things), because it > >> >> encourages you to NOT think about separation of concerns. > >> >> > >> >> cheers, > >> >> barneyb > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Dan Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Scaffolding is great for generating a base controller but in the > end > >> >> > as > >> >> > you > >> >> > said you most likely be rolling your own. I found that controllers > in > >> >> > Grails > >> >> > are extremely simple to write and in single line (via spring) you > can > >> >> > inject > >> >> > your services which is great. As far as active record goes you will > >> >> > have > >> >> > to > >> >> > forgive my lack of knowledge but I don't know much about it. I do > >> >> > know > >> >> > that > >> >> > Grails uses hibernate for the persistance layer, can you explain > what > >> >> > you > >> >> > don't like about that? > >> >> > > >> >> > Thank You > >> >> > Dan Vega > >> >> > [email protected] > >> >> > http://www.danvega.org > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Barney Boisvert < > [email protected]> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> One gripe I had with Grails is that it's ActiveRecord style > >> >> >> persistence. That's as expected, of course, but I'm not a fan. > >> >> >> It's > >> >> >> simple to wrap up with DAO-style persistence to hide the fact. > I'm > >> >> >> also not much of a fan of scaffolding, because you invariably end > up > >> >> >> having to customize, and then you can't regenerate without losing > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> customizations. You can go crazy with your scaffolding templates > to > >> >> >> mitigate some of the issue, but it's still hard to get it all > right. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> All that said, for getting something out the door quickly it's > >> >> >> awesome. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> cheers, > >> >> >> barneyb > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Henry <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Has anyone used Rails? loved it? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I just read a book on introductory of Groovy and Rails. I wish > CF > >> >> >> > can > >> >> >> > be that easy. I didn't have high hope for CF9's hibernate > >> >> >> > integrations before, but now I really wish Adobe got it right. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Is it possible to run CFGroovy (with Rails) for M&C, and run CF > >> >> >> > for > >> >> >> > V? Just a thought. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Henry Ho > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> Barney Boisvert > >> >> >> [email protected] > >> >> >> http://www.barneyb.com/ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Barney Boisvert > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> http://www.barneyb.com/ > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Barney Boisvert > >> [email protected] > >> http://www.barneyb.com/ > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Barney Boisvert > [email protected] > http://www.barneyb.com/ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
