True, but if I were to stack the benefits in order of importance (personally) I would have to say that migration is key at this point. Reactor is going to go 1.0 in the near future -- it's about building a community, right? Swapping out (with ease) is a golden concept too; but not the entire basis for the argument.
It is such a simple, little, tweak that could bring in dozens of migrated applications in our organization alone. Never-the-less, I wish people were not so hostile to a discussion here. We mean no harm and we come in peace! - Shannon -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Corfield Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 12:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D On 3/23/06, Shannon Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the contrary, removing the unnecessary "Reactor" appendage does in fact > completely abstract Reactor. No, Kurt indicated that it would allow you to swap out Reactor for another ORM: "Persistence code should be abstracted so that the other layers don't have to worry it and persistence frameworks can be swapped out without causing the whole application to need to be changed." This change would *not* help that at all: changing Reactor does not change any of the other ORMs which all have different APIs. If you want to abstract the ORM, write a data layer that wraps Reactor - just like I did in my Objects & Persistence sample app (download the seven variants ZIP from my blog). -- 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/
