See the comments below
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
John Farrar
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:16 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
Sorry I didn't make my point clear. oQuery has diverted
Murat Demirci wrote:
The wrong with oQuery is related to its main intent. CF provides several
data passing techniques currently:
- simple values
- arrays
- structures
- queries
- xml
- custom components (like Person, AddressTO)
Sorry I didn't make my point clear. oQuery has diverted from the
Title: RE: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
Adam,
No, QueryIterator is not a UDF library it'sjust
an *Iterator* object so it is simple; this simplicity doesn't mean it's not an
object. However it may implement a more general interface. For
example:
- any init(query)- boolean
isLast
I have gone a different direction with oQuery.cfc, but only slightly.
Here is my thoughts. SOHO business doesn't always have the time or
manpower to implement what is correct solutions for the perfect
programmer. If they are logging page execution speed... then they can do
second best
Title: RE: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
- This component is a different thing from iterator component. It is an alternative of CF's query object.
- This component may does stateful and stateless iteration and it may contain all functions related to the queries.
- I think, however we
I think splitting the notions of QueryIterator and QueryComponent is a
mistake, and is seeming kind of like a procedural-coding answer to an OO
question.
I think you're casting this as a discussion about object oriented design
when it isn't inherently so. All good software design is
: Friday, February 25, 2005 3:24 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
I hate it when people do it to me, but I'm going to do it to you,
John. I always post some awsome code, and people immediately start
asking for enhancements -- instead of letting me bask
PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Joe Rinehart
Sent: 25 February 2005 13:25
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
John was thinking mistakenly that I want ASP-style recordsets in CF. No,
it's not true. Also ASP died currently and ASP.NET's DataTable object
doesn't have moveNext
Murrat,
If the component doesn't fill your needs then it's like CFScript. Many
CF developers don't see the need for CFScript... others like me enjoy
it. If the functions serves others there is no need to be a web blanket
and douse others enjoyment of software development and doing things
other
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Farrar
Murrat,
If the component doesn't fill your needs then it's like
CFScript. Many CF developers don't see the need for
CFScript... others like me enjoy it. If the functions serves
others there is no need to be a
Well, after that lengthy discussion, I figured it was only fair if I posted
some code. :)
As I said before, my goal is to create an iterator interface which can be
used with various types of collections. In my case, I have immediate need
for queries and arrays.
So, I built an Iterator base
@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
DataRowCollection.GetEnumerator()
ah, .NET, the exceedingly long names for classes, most of which are buried
deep within other classes with exceedingly long names...
i should remember these things when i get annoyed with CF
Ben Rogers wrote:
Couple of things. You've duplicated a couple of values. I'm not sure I see
why. Specifically, columnList and recordCount are copies from the original
query. Since you already have a reference to the query, you can just get
that information directly from the query. If the query
NO... there are no naming collisions. The only attributes are the field
names.
Yeah, there could be. Consider this code:
!--- c.cfc ---
cfcomponent
cffunction name=f
cfset this.f = fubar
cfreturn So far, so good
/cffunction
cffunction
Right... that is a style. I have voted on the CF wish list for
protected attributes.
I might be misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but the variables
scope has similar visibility to protected in Java. What's missing is
private.
Right now this is the way I set externally
visible
.
Roland
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ben Rogers
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 10:40 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
Right... that is a style. I have voted on the CF wish list for
protected
1) What's the perceived benefit of using the displayname attribute of
cfcomponent? I've never understood why people bother with it.
The object represents a data recordset. The attributes are the data
columns. There are no addtional attributes in my CFC, only the data column
names are passed to
This is so the code can consistently reference the object rather than
jumping back in forward to query and object. This will be more the case
if the CFC is enhanced with the ability to manipulate the object. (Say
filtered, deleted and added or merged records)
I think I see what you're getting
The object represents a data recordset. The attributes are the data
columns. There are no addtional attributes in my CFC, only the data column
names are passed to the attributes scope.
I don't quite see what we're buying ourselves with this CFC. It's
certainly a good exercise in design and
Joe Rinehart wrote:
Concerning efficiency, I think any code released to the outside world
as a development tool should employ the most efficient methods known
to the developer writing them. If it's an internal one-off project, I
can understand letting some stuff go, but to release something
OK... got the naming conflict issue. Thanks for sticking with me.
Now addressing the object is like this...
objectName.column.columnName
so an object named objProduct and a column named image would be
addressed like this.
cfoutput
#objProduct.column.image#
/cfoutput
Attached is the upgraded code
? It will only serve to
frustrate them when their code runs dog-slow.
Roland
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of John Farrar
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:37 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
Well... didn't
? It will only serve to
frustrate them when their code runs dog-slow.
Roland
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of John Farrar
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:37 AM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
Well... didn't
I would be curious if you perform the complete routine if your code runs
slower or faster. Would be good for stream lining the code...
I agree, that would be interesting to see. I think that this test, however,
would be more artificial than one that only accessed some of the properties.
The
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
Joe Rinehart wrote:
Concerning efficiency, I think any code released to the outside world
as a development tool should employ the most efficient methods known
to the developer writing them. If it's an internal one-off project, I
can understand letting
record is processed.
Ben Rogers
http://www.c4.net
v.508.240.0051
f.508.240.0057
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Roland Collins
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:46 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] query object CFC
Rogers
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:51 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
I would be curious if you perform the complete routine if your code runs
slower or faster. Would be good for stream lining the code...
I agree, that would be interesting to see. I
lookups) being done under the hood. It just
*looks* like less.
Roland
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ben Rogers
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:34 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
But you have
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Roland Collins
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:25 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] query object CFC Beta
Here's some performance testing with various size recordsets, in seconds.
Also attached is a graph
Just had some assistance to tweek it down a little more from one of you
great guys! Thanks... here is the final version we settled on.
--
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
cfcdev@cfczone.org with the words
Here it is... the guys on this list should be able to understand it's
usage. (If anyone wants to help document... that would be great also.)
This version is somewhat tested... but don't have a full QA on this, so
let me know if you find any fixes or enhancements.
Thanks again,
John Farrar
31 matches
Mail list logo
