Include me on the distribution list please. I'm interested to see exactly how this will work.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Adam Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think all I need is a setLimit() on the TIBO - > > I'm presently working up a uml for my _plan_ which once complete, i > could email to those interested for review, comment, and revision... > > On Dec 5, 10:34 pm, "Chris Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ya know, if we are going to roll this, why not build a paging model into it >> from the git go? I bet tons of folks have done that already or have their >> own hacks around it (I perform my sql query for ID's only, for the specific >> page of results i want, then loop and return the transfer objects as a part >> of a structure with totalPages, currentPage, itemsPerPage, and the TO array. >> >> just thinkin out loud here >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Adam Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I'm getting the feeling that either you guys don't have your own >> > implementation of this pattern in transfer, or your just holding out >> > on me.. ;) >> >> > @Peter.. >> > How have you used transfer with your IBO pattern? Does LightBase use >> > Transfer? >> >> > @Chris >> > I would like to suggest that we define the scope of the TIOB >> > responsibilities, and dependencies, and then specify the functionality >> > and implementations which are required for our general use cases... >> >> > @John >> > I would be able to commit a super alpha tag once we lay this thing >> > out... and I would look froward to as much testing and feedback as >> > possible...besides I need some extra validation in my life =). >> >> > For Follow Up: >> >> > Does anyone have any caveats or advice they can share when approaching >> > this? >> > Mark, Is this an abomination of the TransferObject?? >> > What are some of the other "design around" practices in use? >> > Any one else interested in collaborating/helping/testing? >> >> > I remain, >> > Adam Drew >> >> > On Dec 5, 7:48 pm, "John Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > I design around this, but would love to check it out when/if super alpha. >> >> > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Chris Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> > > > I want to see this too =) With the latest proxy object support and >> > lazy >> > > > loading, I have been using an array of transfer objects in a few >> > places, >> > > > which I would love to gut and replace with something like your TIBO >> > > > (Transfer Iterating Business Object, lets spread the word, thats the >> > new >> > > > acronym). If you need a tester let me know =) >> >> > > > Chris Peterson >> > > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> >> > > >> Im certainly interested in seeing how this progresses :-) >> >> > > >> Peter >> >> > > >> On Dec 5, 2008, at 1:05 AM, Adam wrote: >> >> > > >> > I am trying to create an IteratingTransferObject, or >> > > >> > AbastractIteratingObject, or IteratingBusinessObject (IBO) as >> > > >> > described by Mr. Peter Bell... >> >> > > >> > I need something to kill the OIP evil do-er with transfer objects >> > from >> > > >> > large tables that _need_ the concrete, mixin, and abstract code to >> > > >> > perform accordingly... (validation/documentation/business objects, >> > ui, >> > > >> > ajax calls, mvc plugins, services, gateways..) I was never never >> > able >> > > >> > to find, or didn't look in the right places for a solid example of >> > the >> > > >> > pattern in use with transfer. >> >> > > >> > I think it's a great idea, so I did a quick and dirty test in my >> > > >> > model .. this dirty test gave my ui an unscientifically estimation >> > of >> > > >> > 80%!! reduction in load times on large record sets, as compared to >> > > >> > when i just use very large transfer object collections. >> >> > > >> > In my proof of concept I immediately ran into a few things right of >> > > >> > the bat that would require some rethinking and refactoring.. >> > But.... >> > > >> > I don't want to run off into the desert with no water if there is >> > > >> > another route... >> >> > > >> > My ITO is a factory generated, beanInjected, wrapper on a new >> > transfer >> > > >> > object that is being populated() by my Abstract Decorator and looped >> > > >> > over a cached query,. so when i get one of these 'transferObjects' >> > > >> > it's not exactly being created by Transfer, and I found that i was >> > > >> > getting a PK = 0 and isPersisted = false and isDirty=true..... >> >> > > >> > I quickly hacked my wrapper to get the PK from the >> > instance.recordset, >> > > >> > insted of the TO just to make it work.... but I cant move any >> > further >> > > >> > with this until i get my head around the Performance / Development/ >> > > >> > Cost involved... or at least make me feel comfortable that it's >> > going >> > > >> > to work until adobe _hopefully_ fixes the OIP in CF9???.. >> >> > > >> > I'm just looking for any feedback from anyone with any interest in >> > my >> > > >> > topic.. >> >> > > >> > Thanks Guys! >> >> > > > -- >> > > > Hey! I dont tell you how to tell me what to do, so dont tell me how to >> > do >> > > > what you tell me to do! ~ Bender (Futurama) >> >> -- >> Hey! I dont tell you how to tell me what to do, so dont tell me how to do >> what you tell me to do! ~ Bender (Futurama) > > > -- Bob Silverberg www.silverwareconsulting.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
