Re: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D

[Jeff Lester]

Fair enough, as a man who's had a hand in implmenting many of the frameworks that make my life easier today, I will not argue. And the end of the day, if Doug feels that this can be done without too much trouble or causing fragility or difficulty I would like to help or support it, but _only_ if it adds to the framework and doesn't detract anything from it. I personally use controllers for everything as my service layer so moving from one framework to another is quite simple and does not require much effort. Reactor however, has removed close to 10,000 lines of code for me already, and I'm looking forward to the next 10,000. :)

~Jeff~

On 3/24/06, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 3/23/06, Jeff Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to add I build enterprise level web-applications as well. I can
> see both sides here. Basically Shannon is making a suggestion to tweak
> something that works on his level, obviously there are going to be different
> organizations that use different methods, but ultimately, designing an ORM
> such as reactor so that its auto-generated API names are customizable is
> both highly desirable, and extremely complex in terms of dynamic coding.

FWIW, I actually think adding a configuration parameter that specifies
the record suffix string (and the iterator suffix string) is a useful
idea that would indeed solve Shannon's / Kurt's problem.

My issue here is twofold:
- persistent criticism of a framework's philosophy
- insistence that someone's pet tweak is trivial

These two things are common to so many discussions I've seen around
frameworks and they really run counter to the idea of consistency and
coherence in frameworks. A frameworks *always* involves tradeoffs -
you cannot expect a framework to do everything *your* way.

> The end question is, how hard is it to implement this into the configuration
> as an IteratorPostfix / RecordPostfix variable setting? If it's not that
> difficult where is the harm in implementing it if only to get more people on
> board? I'd be willing to help however needed.

Every single configuration option makes a framework harder to learn
and more fragile. It's a dangerous tradeoff. Just because it's a "good
idea" doesn't mean it should be implemented.

As I say above, I think this *is* a good idea but I'm not sure whether
it should be implemented...
--
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 -- reactor@doughughes.net
-- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/

-- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- reactor@doughughes.net -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/