Re: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D

[Jared Rypka-Hauer]

I think what I'm realizing is that (consider a User Reactor object) you see getFirstname() (returns string), getLastname() (returns string), and getAddress() (returns Address) or getUserRole() (returns UserRole) as being the SAME KIND OF OPERATION. They're getters that return properties from the User bean... whereas getAddressIterator() returns a utility object that isn't a straight-up getter for a simple or complex property of the object... is this a correct summary of your perspective? From THAT PERSPECTIVE, I suddenly see why it makes sense to you... you don't see methods like getFirstnameString() or getZipCodeNumber() so why see methods like getAddressRecord()... right? Am I on the right track here? Laterz, J ------------------------------------------------ Jared C. Rypka-Hauer Continuum Media Group LLC http://www.web-relevant.com Member, Team Macromedia - ColdFusion "That which does not kill me makes me stranger." - Yonah Schmeidler On Mar 24, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Shannon Jackson wrote: Forgot one comment, sorry Sean. I'm also very concerned about changing getXyzRecord() when getXyzIterator() also exists. The Record/Iterator distinction seems rather important to me... I think the Iterator is appropriately named and stands by itself as a utility.  Not sure why having the embedded bean name absent of 'record' would cause distinction problems.  It may be that my perspective of it is wrong too... :) - Shannon -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sean Corfield Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:28 AM To: reactor@doughughes.net Subject: Re: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D On 3/24/06, Shannon Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I will let Kurt answer that one, because he has the Java experience.  As far as tweaking the DAOs to make any new ORM fit... again, I am simply saying that having a standard bean naming convention makes it so they wouldn't have to be tweaked.  I hope I am answering your question right. Yes, but you're missing my point I think: you are asking Reactor to change but none of the other ORMs will fit your naming convention without change either (substantial change in some cases!) so changing Reactor does not make it easier to use other ORMs - a point that was claimed in this thread. You also don't seem to be objecting to createRecord() - another method that is not named the same way in other ORMs. You're asking Reactor to change to fit your world view instead of abstracting the ORM layer - which you'd have to do in order to use any other ORM, or even custom DAOs for code that doesn't use an ORM... Can you see the point I'm making here? I'm also very concerned about changing getXyzRecord() when getXyzIterator() also exists. The Record/Iterator distinction seems rather important to me... (And, yes, I am very deliberately playing Devil's Advocate in this thread!) -- 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/