(just to be a wiseass devil's advocate)
Why not just name your DB columns the same as you'd want the property names?
Instead of this:
Some
--------------------
SomeId
Some_Name
Some_DateCreated
Why not this:
Some
-------------------
SomeId
Name
DateCreated
-Joe
On 2/9/06, Jared Rypka-Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
--
Get Glued!
The Model-Glue ColdFusion Framework
http://www.model-glue.com
