Re: Reactor For CF Object Relational Mapping

[Jared Rypka-Hauer]

Now THAT is an idea I like. I really hate having all the elements from forms, URLs and objects act like implicit bindings to match up to the DB. It makes things less re-usable (unless you're really handy with the find/replace) and it's just a forced dependency that might be handy, but can really make things awkward. Especially since the name of a column might make sense in the context of a record, but as a field name in a form is just oogly. What makes sense as a column name make look ridiculous as a URL variable. Now, I know I can do something in my controller like <cfset MyObj.setFoo(arguments.event.getValue("bar"))> but if Foo===bar in this scenario and does so consistently, why not let me map them somehow so that I can just use the labels that make sense for my elements and let Reactor sort'em out? In the XML laid out below, I'm assuming that code like this: <cfscript> // I assume that this: MyObj.setSomeId(9); MyObj.setName("Fred"); // Is a synonym for this: MyObj.setId(9); MyObj.setSome_Name("Fred"); </cfscript> I have a situation where I'm getting data from PayPal, and their forms are full_of field_names like_this. sender_email, address_city, and mc_gross. So I end up with an ARF object that has the matching methods... Ledger.getPayment_Status() or Ledger.setSender_Email(). It's almost enough to give me a stomach ache. I'll grant you that it works, but it's so damned ugly I can hardly stand it... and there's no way around it because ARF provides no mapping capabilities whatsoever except between related objects (so you can tell it that Account.accountId is the matching key for ProposedTopics.submitterId AND for ProposedTopics.speakerId). This sort of mapping concept would be awesome for adding that little extra bit of abstraction that I've been wishing for. Here Here Ryan! Laterz, J ------------------------------------------------ Jared C. Rypka-Hauer Continuum Media Group LLC http://www.web-relevant.com Member, Team Macromedia - ColdFusion "That which does not kill me makes me stranger." - Yonah Schmeidler On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Miller, Ryan wrote: To follow up my questions on Views and in relation to the other discussion about only saving certain values.   Is adding some mapping capability to the config xml been discussed or planned?    Or does this little community prefer doing it's mappings via Views?   I'm thinking about diving into the code to add support for something like this in the config xml   <object name="SomeClass" table="SomeTable">   <fields>     <field name="someID" column="ID" />     <field name="name" column="some_name" />   </fields> </object>   I thought I'd just float the idea here to see if this has been discussed or tried already before jumping in with both feet.   Thanks, Ryan Miller