James
You don't necessarily need to return an object, an alternative is to use
composition as a form of encapsulation:
Example, you have a cfc responsible for validation
In the above example you can swap out the functionality by c
>From my initial OO experience, I would say this is an acceptable
practice. I have seen/done this very thing in DAOs to return beans to
the caller.
Also, I use this to return error objects from form validator objects.
It works quite well.
If you haven't you should subscribe to the CFC Mailing li
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 March 2005 8:27
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Object composition and calling objects
James
You don't necessarily need to return an object, an alternative is to use
composition as a form of encapsulation:
Example, you have a cfc responsible
Take a look at the Tartan framework. It looks really confusing
initially, but it takes care of inter-object relationship problems
with a remarkable degree of simplicity once you get your head around
it.
I've also had great success with taking the configuration management
objects (AppLoader, AppMa
Out of curiosity, what is the objective your code aims for?
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:48:12 -0800, Barney Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Take a look at the Tartan framework. It looks really confusing
> initially, but it takes care of inter-object relationship problems
> with a remarkable deg
Basically just a single registry of all properties and top-level
objects in the application. So any object can request a handle to the
registry and recall any object or property it needs. In particular,
it doesn't provide any sort of assistance to implementing the business
logic beyond providing
Barney if you would blog this and your experience with Tartan in
detail I bet you'd get a ton of traffic. (hint hint). :-D
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:34:58 -0800, Barney Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically just a single registry of all properties and top-level
> objects in the application
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:48:57 -0500, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barney if you would blog this and your experience with Tartan in
> detail I bet you'd get a ton of traffic. (hint hint). :-D
I got the impression that Barney was talking about his ad hoc
modification of Mach II's innards
Sean's correct, I haven't used Tartan beyond poking around the
examples and tweaking a few things.
Though 'ad hoc modification to Mach-II's innards' isn't quite
accurate. The functionality is almost entirely unchanged; the only
difference to the managers is the types of the various
arguments/retu
9 matches
Mail list logo
