I'm having trouble seeing what 'legitimate' reason there might be for storing an instance of 900-year old person in your database. 900 years looks suspiciously like a 'flag' value to me, and if that's the case, I think I'd prefer to address it by modifying the database table (or object definition) and adding a new boolean column (or property) for whatever that flag represented.
Again, it sounds a bit like Barney's superuser with a negative userid. The sign bit of the integer (the userid) is implicitly being used as a boolean, 'IsASuperUser'. I think I'd prefer to see that drawn out as an explicit boolean. 'Course, I could be guessing wrong. I'm interested. Cheers, Andy --- "Hagan, Ryan Mr (Contractor ACI)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't say which method (if any) is the "correct" method, but I can see > some benefit to having your store() method be a little dumb. I don't think > that you should "definitely" have store() call validate(). I may have > perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to serialize "bad" data, such as > storing a "900" year old "person". > > Possibly an even better implementation would be passing your store () method > an optional parameter (defaulted to true) that indicates whether or not to > call the validate() method? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Data validation > > > I'm not saying that 'store' shouldn't validate, it DEFINITELY should, what I > am saying is that 'store' shouldn't care about how the validation process > works. In Andy's original post, he said that 'store' would throw an > exception if 'validate' wasn't called first, and that's totally wrong. It > creates a very tight coupling between the 'validate' and 'store' methods, > which are relatively unrelated in terms of the public API of the object. > > Here is a perfectly legit implementation of the 'store' method, using > validate, though it is definitely less effecient than it could be: > > <cffunction name="store" ...> > <!--- arguments ---> > > <cfif structCount(validate())> > <cfthrow type="InvalidStateException" /> > <cfelse> > <!--- do the store ---> > </cfif> > </cffunction> > > A better route is probably to have a private method that returns a bitmap or > something indicating which validation errors that both 'validate' and > 'store' will call. Store will just look and see if it's non-zero, while > validate will unmap (is that the right term) the bits, and convert them to > textual error messages to return to the calling code. That also keeps the > messages (which are really part of the presentation layer) separate from the > logic. > > barneyb > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Behalf Of Raymond Camden > > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:52 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Data validation > > > > > > This is an interesting view, Barney, more so because it seems wrong to > > me. Why would it not be the domain of "store" to also do a validate? > > Consider a Person CFC, which has an age property. The age must be a > > number greater or equal to zero, but less then 150 (or some such). Why > > would "store" want to assume that you passed it valid data? Sure it can > > validate (using <cfargument>) that the value was a number, but it can't > > validate that it's a "proper" number. I guess it comes down to - why do > > you assume the caller will send you proper data? You say validate is a > > tool to help the calling code - and I agree with that - but why can't it > > help other methods as well? I can certainly see the client calling > > validate() to ensure the data it wants to pass to store() is safe, but > > I'd assume store() would assume the user is always forgetful, and should > > therefore do the anal thing and validate() as well. > > > > ===================================================================== === > > === > > Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc > > (www.mindseye.com) > > Member of Team Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/go/teammacromedia) > > > > Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Blog : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus/blog > > Yahoo IM : morpheus > > > > "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barney Boisvert > > > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:52 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Data validation > > > > > > > > > I would highly recommend that your 'store' method does NOT > > > through an exception unless there is a problem. Having it > > > check to see if 'validate' was called is not it's job. It's > > > job is to merely disallow the operation if it can't proceed, > > > and whether 'validate' was called has no bearing on that. > > > 'validate' is a tool to help the calling code determine what > > > an exception means in a way that can help it be resolved. > > > > > > You want me to structure my code this way (which is perfectly legit): > > > > > > <cfset errors = myCFC.validate() /> > > > <cfif structCount(errors) GT 0> > > > <!--- error display ---> > > > <cfelse> > > > <cfset myCFC.store() /> > > > </cfif> > > > > > > But I like to do it this way, since we have an exception > > > handling mechanism in CF. It just reads cleaner than a bunch > > > of CFIFs that are doing exception handling. And in this > > > case, it'll also save me from generating that error struct > > > unless I need it. > > > > > > <cftry> > > > <cfset myCFC.store() /> > > > <cfcatch type="IllegalStateException"> > > > <cfset errors = myCFC.validate() /> > > > <!--- error display ---> > > > </cfcatch> > > > </cftry> > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' > > in the message of the email. > > > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported > > by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). > > > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' > in the message of the email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported > by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' > in the message of the email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported > by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail- archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
