> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Corfield
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:13 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Reactor for CF] Fusebox 5 Example
>
> On 8/16/06, Marc Funaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I truly am curious to know how big a difference there
> is among
> > everyone, on how they are calling their model when
> using CFCs. Hoping
> > more people will chime in on this one.
>
> Me too! I'd love to hear more opinions on this but I
> suspect we'll get more feedback on the *Fusebox* list :)
I agree.
> > So then I guess the question is, if the MVC pattern
> is meant to truly
> > isolate the three functions, isn't placing the calls
> directly to the
> > CFCs in the controller circuit creating a situation
> where there's a
> > dependency - the
>
> Well, the controller is by definition dependent on the
> API of the model since it has to communicate with it.
> It doesn't matter whether your model is a Fusebox
> circuit or a CFC, the controller has to know how to
> interact with it.
Got it.
>
> > To rephrase, shouldn't the controller be sending
> messages to a central
> > model circuit, and have that circuit return back
> what's expected,
> > without the
>
> That would be reasonable for migrating a legacy
> application to use CFCs (just change each piece of the
> model circuit) but be careful of creating a delegate
> controller! If your model circuit is acting as a
> controller for the CFCs, then your controller circuit
> is simply delegating everything to another controller...
Which makes zero sense... And I like the fact that I have one less circuit
file to always have to work with.
>
> > So at least one person here is using #2, and if he
> didn't want to
> > venture into what he considers to be "bad practice",
> would actually use #1.
>
> With Fusebox 5, using <cf:try> / <cf:catch> is
> perfectly reasonable - those are part of the standard
> skeleton application. So I expect more people to move
> from #2 to #3 with Fusebox 5. Remember that "best
> practice" changes over time...
Agreed. Makes total sense.
>
> > But these questions still seem pretty valid to me
> before I forge ahead
> > with that decision.
>
> Oh, they are absolutely valid questions! I just like to
> know why folks are asking these sorts of questions (so
> I can tell how best to answer them - and as Simeon
> observes I will most often say "it depends" :)
And I understand now, why "it depends". Putting calls to the CFCs in the
controller makes the most sense, it seems, when CFCs are 100% your model...
And if youhave something else for a model, a call to a circuit makes sense
too. I guess the two can easily co-exist.
>
> > However, I can also see that this is likely heading
> into off-topic
> > territory for this list at this point, too.
>
> Feel free to take it up on the Fusebox 5 list (or even
> the Fusebox 4 list or the Fusebox forums). Like I say,
> I'm interested in hearing more Fuseboxer's thoughts on this.
I will do that.
Thanks again!
M
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List
[email protected]
Archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
