Hi Doug, Here is a portion of our skeleton application.
http://jidev.com/skeleton.zip Things to look for in this app that are related to the conversations are: 1. the listeners (userAddress in particular) -- there are commented dependencies here and a sample of what the syntax was prior to Reactor. 2. the service beans -- here there are dependencies to Reactor that are just fine because it stays below the service layer. As for your #1 below, I honestly don't think the Iterator needs to be named differently simply because it is a utility that you don't have to use if you don't want to. You can use gateways instead. However, if someone else is thinking otherwise I would like to here the reasoning. With that being said, it would be pretty darned nice to have that as an options as well! - Shannon -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Hughes Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D I'm super busy today so not much time to think on this. Here are a few things I'm considering: 1) Config option for record and Iterator naming conventions (are there any others of note?). IE: it would default to record but you can change it to whatever you want. 2) Some sort of plugin interface. For example, maybe a way to include your custom XSL into the reactor xsl (not sure how yet) so you can create any custom methods you might want. I look forward to reviewing you app (very much). It may take me up to a week to find the time (two full time projects at the moment). Doug -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shannon Jackson Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D Kurt and I just chatted, and we will release a chunk of a skeleton app today that uses Mach-II, Coldsrping, & Reactor. I'll email the list a link to download it after we add a few comments to highlight the areas we have been discussing here. - Shannon -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Woodward Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D On 3/23/06, Kurt Wiersma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is is true Matt, but what we have found with our sample application is > that we are to abstract the rest of the Reactor API easily through our > service layer. The getXyzRecord() is the main method name that held us back. > We figure we should propose changing it. It certainly won't be the end of > the world if this change doesn't happen but we thought it was something for > the community to consider. > > I am going to continue work on example to show how we are doing our > abstraction. I am going going to need the weekend to complete it. :) Cool--we just started doing a small application with Reactor (loving it so far, by the way) but I'll be curious to see examples of how you approach this issue. Matt -- Matt Woodward [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mattwoodward.com -- 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/
