I concur with Anthony, Although I've always tried to take a serious approach with regards to OOP methodology - you still need room for creativity and maximizing performance from your environment.
We discovered in the Beta list that Branch Actions do execute faster than TCF instantiation and method calls - but TCFs are much more "modular" containers of your code. ................................... Here's a point to keep in mind - Modularize (separate) your code based on the technology layers. ----------------- Presentation Layer (Includes) ~~ Use the Presentation Action and put your HTML (and JavaScript, CSS, etc,,) in Includes. ~~ TCF files can also return HTML. ----------------- Business Logic Layer (TAF files) ~~ Primarily this is the guts of your TAF file, where you use the If / Elseif / Else Actions, Loop Actions and Branch Actions to contain your "application flow". ----------------- Data Layer (TCF files or Branches) ~~ Put your Database calls (Search, Insert, Update, Delete, DBMS Actions) in TCF files or Branches. ~~ Put External Actions and COM / JavaBean interaction is TCF as well. ........ Some the benefits of the above are, that when a piece of the technology changes or updates - you don't have to re-write everything.: ~~ Additional developers can work on different parts of the application at the same time. ~~ A presentation example: You may need to add special HTML output handling for new Browsers, e.g., Safari. ~~ A data example: you originally wrote an application with MS Access as the database and now you've upgrade to SQL-Server and want to take advantage of Stored Procedures. ~~ An external action example: You want to swap out an Email Action for a File Write Action that dumps raw files to an SMTP folder (this is more reliable). ~~ Or, you might want to switch a COM Object for a JavaBean. ................................... In addition to the above, you may want to think about how you can implement Dynamic Datasource assignments for your applications - to make your code more independent. http://xml-extra.net/webpage.xmlx?node=41 Some stuff to think about. Hope this helps. Cheers........... Scott Cadillac, Witango.org - http://witango.org 403-281-6090 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Information for the Witango Developer Community --------------------- XML-Extranet - http://xml-extra.net 403-281-6090 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Well-formed Development (for hire) --------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony M. Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:35 AM Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: Best way to modularize a large app? > Some people will say that TCFs are the way to go. If you are used to OOP and your problem can be easily solved with an object methodology then, yes, this is the way to go. > > OOP, ie TCFs, are the "present" and the future of programming. However, it is not necessary, or even prudent, to ALWAYS use them. Sometimes a function call or an include file or a branch action is just what the doctor ordered. Also, some of what you (and your team) use will be based on what you (and your team) are already comfortable with. > > I still use branch actions, and will continue to work with them. Here's why: > 1) lower overhead - no need to initiate a whole object to use one small method once (we've all seen this way too often!) > 2) easier to program & debug - (for me, anyways) - build the code inline, then break it out and branch to it (like your scenario) > 3) simple and straightforward > 4) perfect for situations where code need to be inline and can be reused (kind of like include files) > > So, no, branching to another TAF is not "outdated already". It's just another tool in our box that can be used to help us solve problems. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ServerSmiths Tango Development > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Witango-Talk: Best way to modularize a large app? > > > > > I have a large monolithic app that I have planned to make modular for speed > and ease of updating. > > A post on the list last week made a parenthetical comment about there being > better ways to do things than branching. > > Isn't creating 6 modules out of 1 large app and then branching back and > forth the best way to go? > > What would be the alternatives? > > Maybe I misinterpreted the comment but I certainly need to know if the > branch to another .taf concept is outdated already. > > Thanks, > > Michael Heth > Web Information Architect > > > __________________S E R V E R S M I T H S__________________ > > http://www.serversmiths.com/ > > Technology Infrastructure Provider > > I N T E R N E T P R E S E N C E S O L U T I O N S > > | EWordSmith | LightningSite | Enigma.Engine | > > ________M A R I N C O U N T Y C A L I F O R N I A________ > > ________________________________________________________________________ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body > ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text/US ASCII email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe witango-talk in the message body
