(I hit enter too soon)
I *do* think it's a good idea, but mainly so that I can have Reactor
use legacy tables (whee naming doesn't conform to the rest of an app)
and give them the same convention on an API level.
-Joe
On 2/9/06, Joe Rinehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (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
>
--
Get Glued!
The Model-Glue ColdFusion Framework
http://www.model-glue.com
