Thanks,
--Kurt
On 3/24/06, Shannon Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree. Thanks, Doug. You guys are doing a great job.
- S
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Doug Hughes
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 7:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D
For what it's worth, I don't think anyone's attacking anyone. There's no
tone or inflection in email. Let's all keep that in mind and keep
discussing.
Either way, I'm doing anything for a while. But that doesn't mean I'm for
or against any thing. :)
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf
Of Shannon Jackson
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:14 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D
Hi Sean,
I find it hard to swallow "If you were perhaps more sympathetic to the
opinions of others" because we spent a good deal of time researching before
we made a suggestion. We were careful to make sure to supply a sample
illustrating the situation, early on we expressed that it is something that
could be worked around with customized Record objects, and we evaluated
whether or not it is something that other developers would run into.
The interesting thing is that the concept of keeping the business objects
names clean is really not a bad idea. We are merely pointing out that in a
lot of situations the beans that Reactor generates via the factory can
easily slide into existing applications if they weren't appended with
"Record". I feel as though we were pointing out a beautiful feature of
Reactor.
We presented an idea and were asked to explain and we are-- that's all. Our
posts have been full of compliments as well-- the framework is very powerful
and Doug should be proud.
Shannon
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Sean Corfield
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 12:58 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D
On 3/23/06, Shannon Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
To *you*...
> It is such a simple, little, tweak that could bring in dozens of migrated
> applications in our organization alone.
This is always the argument used by people who don't write frameworks
against those who do. Everything is just a little tweak but every
little tweak makes the framework more complex and more fragile and
harder to learn.
> Never-the-less, I wish people were not so hostile to a discussion here. We
> mean no harm and we come in peace!
If you were perhaps more sympathetic to the opinions of others, you
might find them more sympathetic to yours. Your persistence on this
issue is bound to rub people up the wrong way.
Your position comes off as attacking.
Sorry, but I've seen this argument repeatedly during development of
Mach II, Model-Glue and I'm seeeing it with Fusebox 5 - and now
Reactor.
By all means make a suggestion that Doug can consider but you need to
learn when to let it go. Even Kurt said that the approach you use in
Java is to wrap the persistence layer in a DAO - but that doesn't
appear to be acceptable in CF? Why not?
--
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/
-- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected] -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
