> Personally, I would keep the setters/getters separate as much as
> possible. I initially thought you could have a generice setter and
> getter and specify the variable name to be set or retrieved.
>
> Then, after a bit more thinking, "what if I want to add a specific
> validation routine to only one variable".
I had code like this at one stage, but it would check to see if there was a
method called set[something]() or get[Something]() before applying its own
generic setter/getter code. This way there was a very tidy override for the
special cases. I don't currently use code like this as I'm not convinced
it's a good idea. Anyway, here's the getter I'd use (I used to also maintain
a structure of all the variables that were allowed to be accessed, hence the
"gettable" references):
<cffunction name="get" access="public">
<cfargument name="property" type="variableName"
required="yes">
<cfset var getterName = "get" & arguments.property>
<cfif structkeyexists(this, getterName) and
iscustomfunction(this[getterName])>
<cfreturn evaluate("#getterName#()")>
<cfelse>
<cfif not structkeyexists(gettable,
arguments.property)>
<cfthrow message="Cannot set
#arguments.property#. Use makeGettable(""#arguments.property#"") to allow
dynamic setting.">
</cfif>
<cfreturn object[arguments.property]>
</cfif>
</cffunction>
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words '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]
