Used a UML tool with exporting abilities then wrote CFM scripts to parse through that and create the files.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Seth Bienek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What did you use to generate the CF from UML? That is intriguing! > > > > Seth > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On > Behalf Of *Aaron Rouse > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:23 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [houcfug] Re: Getters and Setters > > > > CF9 will be great for the people who are lucky enough to work with it. > Most of the places I have worked for do not tend to upgrade their CF unless > absolutely forced too. For example in the upcoming weeks I will be doing > what is considered a temp. fix to move our public facing server from CF5 to > CF8. The reason for the upgrade is the lack of support for CF5 but it is a > temp. fix because ultimately it will be re-written in .NET. That along with > is dev server that I already did will be the only CF8 servers in this > company that I have any involvement with, the rest range from CF5 to CF7 > with the bulk being I think on CF6 but maybe even CF5. > > > > The projects that I have been involved with that did use getters/setters > and so on would build all of those basic objects via scripts off of UML > diagrams. Saved a ton of time in regards to making things and then was just > a matter of going in and tailoring some of the files as needed then running > unit tests against things to ensure they were generated correctly. We did > always do a getter/setter for all properties even though in many cases not > all of those were ever used. We did that more because it was auto-generated > anyway, would have taken more time to not do it that way. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Seth Bienek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 set* > Property*() 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Aaron Rouse > http://www.happyhacker.com/ > > > > > > -- Aaron Rouse http://www.happyhacker.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
