Re: [Modus-devs] YesNo field, WAS: Collections of content objects and performance

[Sean A C. <se...@co...>]

On Friday, Nov 1, 2002, at 09:37 US/Pacific, Nathan Dintenfass wrote:
> Well, once again the nature of "field" is the issue here.  The yesno 
> field
> exists because to just say "this is a boolean" value does not seem to 
> have
> any advantage of just defining a column in a table in a database.

OK, I see where you're coming from... And I can see that yes/no is more 
familiar to CFers (although I resolutely use true/false :)

> I had not envisioned a
> field as merely a data type, but as a functional unit that can do 
> useful
> things for someone who wants to make HTML-based applications in CFML.

I guess I'm just concerned about the overhead in such 'rich' fields, as 
opposed to just trying to persist an 'object'. As long as Modus can 
still persist a simple boolean, as well as your yesno, then I'm happy.

> This brings up another question I have: should fields be rule aware?  
> That
> is, should a "yesno" field automatically run a boolean rule check, or 
> should
> the developer need to specify that separately in the descriptor?

I think it's reasonable to have some fields that are self-validating 
and this 'rich' yesno field seems to be a good candidate.

"I can smell your brains!"
-- Mittens the Kitten : http://www.matazone.co.uk/theotherside.html