Kurt Wiersma said the following on 3/23/2006 8:46 AM: > It isn't so much that we want to replace Reactor in our application, > but rather we want to make it easier to move exsisting applications > over to use Reactor instead of our old handcoded DAOs. You are correct > in that this isn't a show stopper but Doug asked for feedback before > that critical 1.0 release when the API gets locked down so we though > we would discuss our findings now, rather then lament later. :) > > --Kurt I'm going to have to second Kurt and Shannon here. I have a very large enterprise application (12 months in development) which could benefit from Reactor in the future. However, I also follow the Java naming conventions for beans (even though I'm not a Java person at all). Having Record on the appending to my business objects means my whole service layer would have to change as well as other places in which beans are utilized. This wouldn't be a problem for an application that starts anew, but migrating older handcoded DAO based applications would be a nightmare (either moving sections over or just new features). I think I would have to forgo using Reactor on this project if I would be forced to use Record.
Can't the config file (or API) default to Record and if I so please...I could use "" instead? Even though there is no argument about this point, but having Record appended to stuff just seems clumsy to me (no offense intended Doug, great job). .Peter P.s. I just love that Thunderbird's spell checker suggests that "Wiersma" be "Frontiersman"... :-) -- Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing Member Team Mach-II :: Member Team Fusion http://blog.maestropublishing.com Create boilerplate beans and transfer objects for ColdFusion! Fire up a cup of Rooibos! http://rooibos.maestropublishing.com/ -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected] -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
