Aside from the whole "OO" architecture theme of both Smart-Objects and
CFObjects these concepts that both of them use are VERY similar to fusebox.
I dont consider either one really OO. The good thing about both of them is
that they help promote code re-usability. This really answers your "why?"
question. I am tired of re-writing code because calling the original code
from somewhere else in my app just doesnt fit so neatly into my fusebox
architecture. The idea of writing these code functions (circuits) and being
able to call them neatly from anywhere in my app is appealing, no matter
what you call it or say it resembles. This is just good coding practice, I
dont care if you are using an OO language, a scripting language, or a
tag-based language.
Yes, this certainly does require more fore thought when planning you apps
but imagine the time you could save when you are developing apps if you
could just call code that you have already written into some other circuit
and not have to worry about which header file to include or "do I need to
overwrite this variable that is being set in the other circuit?"!
Those are just my thoughts. I dont consider any of the hoopla around any
methodology that I look into. I only look at it and ask myself, "What parts
of this would work really well and help shorten my development time?".
Russ Johnson
Manager
Jacksonville ColdFusion Users Group
Home (904)695-9500
Mobile (904)465-1848
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Great thinkers have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." --Albert Einstein
-----Original Message-----
From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:07 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: another nesting problem
> This seemed to be a pretty cool method because you create an
> object and then
> you can define methods (read fuseactions) of that object. So the
> query would
> be a method and then you could refer to that object and pass it
> that method
> and it would return the query object.
one solution, if you want to do some object programming, is to use a object
programming language. CF is not such a beast. I think it's a good idea to
keep in mind the old adage about "if all you've got's a hammer, then
everything looks like a nail". SmartObjects, CFObjects, etc and the like are
all very very interesting--but they beg the point: "why?" If you want to
write object orientated code then write in an object orientated language,
otherwise you're just forcing a square peg into a round hole--S.O. and
C.F.O. simply provide some sanding paper to smooth the square peg's edges,
they can't address the underlying issue of why the peg needed to be in that
particular hole in the first place
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
