I see what he is saying. His concept is to configure the abstract interface for the generator. (Might be phrasing it wrong... but that is what it sounds like.) This would not be an issue of rewriting reactor to fit their situation. It's writing reactor to fit many situations, while maintaining a default. This seems like it would be a good way to satisfy internal coding requirements and enhance the speed of integration for many companies. Certainly that proves out to not be selfish request on Shannon's part. It makes a lot of sense.
The big question for me is how to do it flexible and meaningful Shannon. I am for the concept... but how would you achieve it? It seems the only way to achieve it in my flash of creativity would be to hardcode different options. That means that it is more custom and less flexible. In fact that would mean that every time a new standard came out it would have to be refractored to integrate that generation option and tested again. Now if there were a way to implement a generator template then you might have something. To my knowledge this technology is still lacking. So until someone has a robust template generator technology I don't see how Doug can comply with the request without creating something custom at this time. John Farrar -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Hughes Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D So you're asking to have Reactor changed to better fit your application? Isn't that a bit extreme? Either way, show us some examples. Make it clearer. Doug -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shannon Jackson Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D Hi Sean, On the contrary, removing the unnecessary "Reactor" appendage does in fact completely abstract Reactor. We are try to explain that by not having that there we can slip Reactor into existing apps with no modifications to the application above the service layer. So, simplifying Reactors embedded bean calls makes a world of a difference when it comes to migration. It is so close to being abstracted as it is, we are trying to suggest that this small change would make Reactor better than perfect. Beans are beans and we should be able to name them what we want no matter what is going on inside of them. - Shannon -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Corfield Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D On 3/22/06, Doug Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Something that jump out are the point about the "record" convention (is it a > convention or is it just part of the API?) in Reactor. I doubt that you're > going to have much consistency between different ORM frameworks in their > approach to problem solving. This means that another ORM framework would > probably have it's own API and it's own set of issues. Having worked with four of the ORM frameworks - and written them up in my Objects & Persistence talk (download it from my blog) - I can only agree with Doug here. Each framework exposes a different API, a different naming convention. I really don't think it is realistic to expect to be able to simply swap out one ORM for another. I do not think that changing the naming conventions in Reactor will help you here - the naming conventions will be different in each framework so you will still need to either write an adapter for each or modify your code. I think the Reactor naming convention is clear and appropriate - having multiple methods called getXyz() that return a record in one case and an iterator in another case would be a terrible idea. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Got frameworks? "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected] -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected] -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected] -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/ -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected] -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
