Hey James,
That's a great article; classic Adam Haskell, he pulls no punches and tells us exactly what he thinks. He raises the issue of writing getters and setters just for the sake of architecture, and talks about what a waste of time and code it is to write these extra methods for the sake of sticking to a design pattern. He has a good point, but the general counterargument is that the point of having a design pattern is that it follows a pattern. So if you want to write bean-like CFC's, you need to write getters and setters for even the properties that don't NEED encapsulation. Fortunately, CF9 will provide us (along with a ton of other new features) the ability to have implicit getters and setters (or mutators and accessors if you want to get geeky with the terminology). What this means is that you can write getters and setters for the properties that need them (a setter that has business logic in it, for example), but you can still use setProperty() to set properties that you haven't explicitly written setter methods for. So the argument against writing empty getters and setters becomes moot. The article is worth a read for anyone who is, or wants to be, working with OO ColdFusion, as is Adam's blog for anyone serious about CF in general. Take Care, Seth From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Husum Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 5:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [houcfug] Getters and Setters Greetings, Having read this article by Adam Haskell (http://cfrant.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-bother-getters-setters.html) and the topic being kicked off by our own Seth Bienek I was wondering what people's thoughts were on this. I've seen many apps that have been coded with the bean/DAO/Gateway/Service object style of doing things. The beans are nothing but a large collection of getters / setters in most cases. The DAO populates the beans which then get passed around to displays or other functions. Is this just adding lots of overhead to the app? I know this style of coding is not the only way to architect a system, but it certainly seems to be popular and widely pushed among the CF blogs and magazines. But is it a 'best practice' or just lots of extra work for little return? I know, each app should be approached and designed according to its own needs. Does having a set way of doing things (like making beans, DAOs, Gateways, and Service layers) make it easier or harder overall to get an app up and running quickly and keep it maintained over time? -- James Husum The Quixote Project - one guy's quest to make the world a better place - http://www.thequixoteproject.org/ Brainsludge - all the shtuff running around my brain - http://www.brainsludge.com/ Know any writers? I need their input! - http://www.smotu.org/ Currently reading: The Sapphire Rose by David Eddings --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Houston ColdFusion Users' Group" discussion list. To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit http://groups.google.com/group/houcfug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
