Brian,
Brian Kotek escreveu:
> order = factory.create('Order', id);
> result = factory.create('Result');
> order.populate(data);
> // gateway will call order.validate() and if all is OK, call
> order.save() and set isSuccess to true.
> // if validation fails, the errors are set on the result object and
> returned
> gateway.save(order, result);
> if(result.isSuccess()) {
> result.setSuccessMessage('Order was saved successfully');
> }
> return result;
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean by "one more CFC to handle the
> business's rules"? Does what I'm showing above answer your question?
Yes, it answers.
In my readings about beans, DAOs, OO and etc I understood that beans
should have only getters and setters.
In Portuguese we could name it as "donkey object", they have no business
logic inside.
My doubt is if I put business logic inside beans I was breaking some OO
concepts - turn beans in a richer (smarter?) objects.
If you do this I suppose it's not breaking OO concepts or app
maintainability.
One more questions.
"Telling the object what to do" can take much more operations into
beans, right?
example:
client.activate() or deactivate();
client.activateGoogleAnalytics( keycode );
client.activateChatOnline();
What do you think about that?
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
