I think the discussion simply stayed on topic. I do not think people
were saying that typing getters and setters is what strongly typed
languages are all about but that folks saw these as a practical example
to use for discussion. There were/are valid points in both camps
regarding the use of generic getters/setters versus specialized
getters/setters as it applies to 'type strength'. In the end I believe
CF's power is the flexibility to do either strong (ok maybe not super
glue strength but still stronger than none) or loose, or both.
Personally, I felt the more interesting (sub) debate was about defining
the domain model more explicitly through the use of specific
getters/setters versus hints/declarations using the generic
getter/setter approach interesting. Additionally, I found the subtext
about auto-generating beans using metadata or using cfqueryparam types
for cfproperty declarations and the blending of the data/domain model
these approaches imply far more interesting. So interesting I opted to
blog about my perceptions/thoughts on the model blending rather than
dilute the thread.
--
Jason Daiger
URL: www.jdaiger.com
EML: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to
[email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the
email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting
(www.cfxhosting.com).
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
