Re: [Reactor For CF] Reactor R&D

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:32:18 -0800

Jared hit the nail on the head about how we are thinking about this. We figured we might be in 95% of people who do want this feature which is why we proposed it. We may not be, as Sean as some good points about most CFers not having the structure that we do. Nevertheless we thought we would propose it since it may help a lot of CF developers realize the power of more structure. I know it isn't for everyone. It sounds like this may be a change that is best for masses which we are totally fine with. Just thought we would propose it and we really appreciate the feedback and discussion here.

As a contributor to a framework myself (ColdSpring) I am glad to see that we have Sean playing the devils advocate and really questioning whether or not this needs to be in the framework. We know we can get around this wrapping our calls either in another layer or by creating a custom method so we thank you for those suggestions.

--Kurt

On 3/24/06, Jared Rypka-Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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-----
Of Sean Corfield
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 10:28 AM
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 -- [email protected]








-- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected]




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

Reply via email to