That just tells you that what you are considering is the golden rules
aren't as fundamental truths as general principles. So... don't be paranoid
that you are compromising truths... just make sure you evaluate your
decisions carefully. There is to much chatter in the OO world about
tradeoffs and
I just wrote up all my thoughts on each sort of approach, and the pros
and cons of each, and where I feel they apply:
http://www.compoundtheory.com/?action=displayPostID=64
May be some interesting reading in this conversation. :o)
Mark
On 9/14/05, John Farrar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That just
Well it's nice to know that (a) someone reads what I write, and also
(b) someone also feels my pain. :o)
I've been writing some stuff I want to eventually release as open
source, but I can't decide how to package it (in fact I was going to
post about another way of doing it - outlining the usage
Guys,
We have a framework that allows us to create very complex intranet modules,
which leverage of cfc's.
The problem that we faced is the same as what people are discussing here, so
our solution was mappings. But we would define in the application scope
something like this.
cfset
Mark,
We don't do anything complex with objects for that reason, so all the typing
is standard numeric, string etc.
Not fully OO in this case, but it works for us.
Regards
Andrew Scott
Analyst Programmer
CMS Transport Systems
Level 2/33 Bank Street
South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205
Phone: 03
Of Andrew Scott
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:46 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Factories and mappings
Mark,
We don't do anything complex with objects for that reason, so all
the typing
is standard numeric, string etc.
Not fully OO in this case, but it works for us
Yeah - I don't even look at it as an option - simply because it breaks
more rules than the options I outlined earlier - and you are tied to
the Application scope variables... which is no fun.
On 9/13/05, Nando [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, that's certainly an option ... i do a touch of dynamic
programmers at large.
/rant started=you choose where it degraded to a rant mode=OT
value=user selectable
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Andrew Scott
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 2:33 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Factories
John -
And how do you manage/workaround cfargument typing and extends issues?
Mark
On 9/13/05, John Farrar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is what for lack of someone telling me a socially more accepted term
for it... an API. We have built into SOS a more robust API with these exact
goals in
I'm actually sitting here contemplating the above issue.
Looking at the frameworks that currently abound (mach-ii, Tartan,
Model-glue etc) they all have one thing in common - they all have to
be installed by dropping the folder at the root level of the
application.
I'm starting to lean very much
COLDFUSUION
RELEASE!)
John Farrar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mark Mandel
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:41 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Factories and mappings
I'm actually sitting here contemplating the above issue
CF on Rails would be very cool. I really like the active record
stuff. I didn't think you could make interfacing with the database
much easier than CF does - but sure enough Rails beats CF in that
regard (though, it does have some limitations). ActiveRecord is some
smart bit of work though.
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 5:41 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Factories and mappings
I'm actually sitting here contemplating the above issue.
Looking at the frameworks that currently abound (mach-ii, Tartan,
Model-glue etc) they all have one thing in common
Nando:
So to have more than one instance of an app on a server
puts you through some gymnastics. Either you have to search and replace the
mapping name in your CFC's
Or not rely on any mappings!
Going down the directory tree works, it's just going up where you run into
problems.
True, but I
Bill, that's what Nando is not describing. My interpretation was that
every install had a complete copy of the code, not just the custom
code and then access to shared-use components for the core
functionality.
True, but Bill hit on the core issue - it needs to be inexpensive to work
Thanks for the support Kerry. I'm going for the every instance is an
island approach.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Kerry
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:11 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Factories and mappings
Nando -
You using relative pathing (/) in your types etc when doing this, or
you simply avoiding typing arguments etc? (either any or
web-inf.cftags.component)
This is something I've been beating my head against for ages now -
glad to see someone else is feeling my pain.
Currently I have my
your web directory structure?
thanks for your input!
Nando
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Mark Mandel
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 2:23 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Factories and mappings
Nando -
You
this /
/cffunction
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Barney Boisvert
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 7:36 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Factories and mappings
You've got one thing backwards, subclasses would
) This is just a fact (and I have debated the
policy with some of those companies personally.)
John Farrar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Barney Boisvert
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 1:36 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev
Nando,
Is this concept a thought of multiple applications running together? If I
buy several apps built like this... would they all have to be working from
the application.cfc file? It seems like that would be an issue. The site
calendar, site forum, site shop would all have their own
on or off
various features, if we get into wholesaling this thing.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of John Farrar
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 2:36 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Factories and mappings
Nando
Barney,
To answer your question:
I'm also kind of curious. How large of applications are being mass
hosted like this, and need to have the ability to play nice with
myriad other apps (both the same code and different)?
the company I work for builds an app that, against our recommendation,
is
Bill, that's what Nando is not describing. My interpretation was that
every install had a complete copy of the code, not just the custom
code and then access to shared-use components for the core
functionality. I very much like how you've set up your app, and have
done it exactly the same way
You don't have to do it server-side. For example, all of my FB4 apps
are 'built' as part of publishing. The code comes out of source
control, is processed by `ant`, and then uploaded to the server. So
the server has no knowledge that the code it gets isn't what's in the
repository. For that
on which they are
posted. HEH)
Cheers also,
John Farrar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Barney Boisvert
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 4:26 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Factories and mappings
You don't have to do it server
You've got one thing backwards, subclasses would need to be at the
same level or HIGHER than the class they're extending. Other than
that, it sounds reasonable.
However, there's absolutely no reason that any hosting environment
(dedicated, shared, mass hosted, whatever) shouldn't give each
To follow up, here's a working example (note the typing works so far)... not
sure what happens when things get more complex, i'd have to work through it
and find out on the way. Anyone see any gotcha's with this approach?
*
Here's the Factory instantiation, actually after the appliction
28 matches
Mail list logo
