I'm not 100% up to speed on the mixins thing. I'd have to think about how it might work with my scheme. However, I can say that I have <cfproperty tags that can be objects (but they are defined the same way the other properties are).
I should say that my use of <cfproperty> has been for database objects. If I have a field that represents a foreign key, I provide a <cfproperty> for that data field, but also create a <cfproperty> for an object that represents access to that database object. That way, I've built composition into my database objects. ----------------------------------- Gerry Gurevich Application Development NIEHS ITSS Contractor Lockheed Martin Information Technology 919-361-5444 ext 311 -----Original Message----- From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [CFCDev] CFML and Typing (was Bean and CFC question) I was thinking about the cfproperty thing. While I like the idea a lot, it's going to be fatal for mixins, at least as I've implemented them, where any object could be mixed into any other object. I think it's important that the object having code mixed into it not have to know about the mixin object. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Daiger Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] CFML and Typing (was Bean and CFC question) 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] ---------------------------------------------------------- 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] ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]
