Comments on: cfNotate – CFC Persistence Based on Inline Code Annotations – Take that XML and shove it! http://www.harelmalka.com/?p=68 .oOo. Its a dot's world .oOo. Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:42:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: harel http://www.harelmalka.com/?p=68&cpage=1#comment-1460 harel Thu, 17 May 2007 06:35:28 +0000 http://www.harelmalka.com/?p=68#comment-1460 Hi Klaas, Yes I did look at chips note and have toyed with that idea as well. I chose the annotation style because potentially this can include a lot of data and the attribute style can potentially lead to clutter - comments can be folded in most IDEs, while attributes cannot. Also attributes are too restrictive. Comments can be what I want them to be. Attributes must be name=value pairs in double quotes. As well, as you said - I'm not sure we can rely on getMetaData to ALWAYS return same data, even in 2-3 years time in the future. My idea was to start with database mapping but progress it to gui representations and validation rules. I've done this before with XML files but inline code annotations keeps everything closer to home. I like your idea of adding other modes of persistence like the file system - sounds very useful. I've just recently completed a small photo blog application using cfNotate. It was done for a friend's project and will go online soon. Nothing fancy but it turned out quite well and made me tweak the framework a tiny bit. I did add something in regards of pulling data from other tables though I don't think its as elegant as it can be. Perhaps we can come up with something that's got style and sleekness to it ;o) This is an initial draft/proof of concept, and I didn't even have time to integrate my tweaks from the photoblog into it. I intend to post the entire source for it as a sample application once it goes up online. My schedule in the next 2 weeks is going to be hectic, but I'll try to find some time to post the source for the photoblog and integrate the changes made to the framework. Hmm... this could be a start of an interesting project ;o). Harel Hi Klaas,
Yes I did look at chips note and have toyed with that idea as well. I chose the annotation style because potentially this can include a lot of data and the attribute style can potentially lead to clutter – comments can be folded in most IDEs, while attributes cannot. Also attributes are too restrictive. Comments can be what I want them to be. Attributes must be name=value pairs in double quotes. As well, as you said – I’m not sure we can rely on getMetaData to ALWAYS return same data, even in 2-3 years time in the future.
My idea was to start with database mapping but progress it to gui representations and validation rules. I’ve done this before with XML files but inline code annotations keeps everything closer to home. I like your idea of adding other modes of persistence like the file system – sounds very useful.
I’ve just recently completed a small photo blog application using cfNotate. It was done for a friend’s project and will go online soon. Nothing fancy but it turned out quite well and made me tweak the framework a tiny bit. I did add something in regards of pulling data from other tables though I don’t think its as elegant as it can be. Perhaps we can come up with something that’s got style and sleekness to it ;o)
This is an initial draft/proof of concept, and I didn’t even have time to integrate my tweaks from the photoblog into it. I intend to post the entire source for it as a sample application once it goes up online.
My schedule in the next 2 weeks is going to be hectic, but I’ll try to find some time to post the source for the photoblog and integrate the changes made to the framework.
Hmm… this could be a start of an interesting project ;o).

Harel

]]> By: Klaas-Jan Winkel http://www.harelmalka.com/?p=68&cpage=1#comment-1459 Klaas-Jan Winkel Thu, 17 May 2007 01:40:05 +0000 http://www.harelmalka.com/?p=68#comment-1459 Hi, I think this is a really good base for a good ORM. * On contrary to Reactor/Transfer/ObjectBreeze, this starts at the object level and then down to the database. * Leaves your business object model completely intact * Have your mappings to the database or another place to persist close to your object while not putting storage dependent stuff in them * It doesnt generate mappings automatically, when mapping objects to a relational database, sometimes there is more ways then 1. And maybe part of your properties you dont even want to store. This can all be dealt with. Did you have a look at what Chip said? I had a look and that might also be an option, but i wonder if its a good idea to depend on the getmetadata function always returning those extra custom attributes, it might be tricky. Might also get problems when object/method/properties dont map one-to-one to the database. If i have time i want to make an ORM this way, also want to make it more general so you can persist not only into a database, but for example into a file system (for example in case of photo files which you dont want to store as BLOB's in a database) What your missing in your proof of concept is managing of relations to other objects.. right? Did you by any chance already put some work in that? greets, klaas Hi,
I think this is a really good base for a good ORM.

* On contrary to Reactor/Transfer/ObjectBreeze, this starts at the object level and then down to the database.
* Leaves your business object model completely intact
* Have your mappings to the database or another place to persist close to your object while not putting storage dependent stuff in them
* It doesnt generate mappings automatically, when mapping objects to a relational database, sometimes there is more ways then 1. And maybe part of your properties you dont even want to store. This can all be dealt with.

Did you have a look at what Chip said? I had a look and that might also be an option, but i wonder if its a good idea to depend on the getmetadata function always returning those extra custom attributes, it might be tricky. Might also get problems when object/method/properties dont map one-to-one to the database.

If i have time i want to make an ORM this way, also want to make it more general so you can persist not only into a database, but for example into a file system (for example in case of photo files which you dont want to store as BLOB’s in a database)

What your missing in your proof of concept is managing of relations to other objects.. right? Did you by any chance already put some work in that?

greets,
klaas

]]> By: Chip http://www.harelmalka.com/?p=68&cpage=1#comment-1338 Chip Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:01:51 +0000 http://www.harelmalka.com/?p=68#comment-1338 Interesting post. I have taken a different approach- using custom attributes on cfcomponent,function,argument and property tags to accomplish similar annotation ends. This allows you to use the built-in reflection api (getMetaData). See my CFDJ article for more details: http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/read/311292.htm Interesting post. I have taken a different approach- using custom attributes on cfcomponent,function,argument and property tags to accomplish similar annotation ends. This allows you to use the built-in reflection api (getMetaData). See my CFDJ article for more details: http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/read/311292.htm

]]>