Hi All,
I've read the Brian's comments in the Ben Nadel's blog about some
interesting points about architecture.
http://www.bennadel.com/index.cfm?dax=blog:1275.view
It raised me doubts about the OO and code's abstraction.
/"Every time you call a getter or setter you are drifting away from the
real point of OOP, which is to *tell objects what to do*, not to *ask
them for data about themselves*."
/
So in a correct OO approach app has to *tell objects what to do*. Right.
Thinking about that, ins't it
order = serviceOrder.new();
*order.populate( form );*
order.validate();
a better abstraction than
order= serviceOrder.new();
*serviceOrder.populate( order, form );*
order.validate();
In the first example we're saying "Hey, take this form and populate
yourself with these values".
Bellow to the comment Brian suggests if it's a need to check if a
special situation was confirmed of not, use a method "isConfirmed()".
So I need another method inside the object:
order = serviceOrder.new();
order.populate( form );
order.validate();
if (*order.isConfirmed()*) {
serviceOrder.save( order );
} else {
errorMessage = "You need to confirm the order";
}
or use a Service Layer
order = serviceOrder.new();
serviceOrder.populate( order, form );
order.validate();
if (*serviceOrder.isConfirmed( order )*) {
serviceOrder.save( order );
} else {
errorMessage = "You need to confirm the order";
}
Brian, I really liked your comments and your suggestions.
I'm just talking about how this suggest should be done/implemented.
In one hand putting some logic inside beans looks a betters abstraction.
In the other hand it doesn't gives us a good encapsulation because it's
one more CFC to handle part of the business's rules.
What do you think about that?
a) Is it worth to handle some business's rules inside beans to get a
better abstraction and readability?
b) Is it worth to handle this business's rules inside services to get a
better maintainability.
c) It makes no difference.
Thanks,
Ronan
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"CFCDev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
