RE: [Modus-devs] Some general Modus comments to start with

[Nathan D. <na...@ch...>]

I've gotta run out, but just a quick note . . .


> > Yes, definitely not just persistence.  It's about doing away with a
> > lot of
> > mundane, repetitive tasks while offering a tight metaphor for coding.
>
> I guess my concern is that I believe we need a solid persistence layer
> first, on which to build an application framework. I'm worried that by
> trying to create a single all-purpose layer, it won't do either very
> well.

Yes, agreed.  The notion of the "persister" in Modus is a move towards
abstracting the persistence layer away from the contentObject API itself
(though, the baseContentObject has some convenience methods that pass
through the persister).  Right now, each instance of the baseContentObject
has its own reference to a persister (which in the current "build" literally
creates a new instance of a persister!!), and each contentObjectType will
have will have the ability to say which persister it wants to use (any
persister must extend and "implement" the basePersister).  I do think that
before 1.0 we need to move away from having a separate instance of a
persister in each contentObject instance, but I am not sure if the developer
should need to worry about the persister -- that is, it seems very user
friendly to be able to just say pressRelease.save() and have that deal
internally with passing this to the persister.store().  Would you disagree?


> > True, true.  Though, personally performance tends to be a lower
> > priority for
> > me because I rarely work on sites that have huge volume.
>
> I think performance is important enough in real life for enough CFers
> that we do need to consider it.

Yes, but not prioritize it.  I just think there are more important concerns
for Modus given the audience.  Thus, performance must be acceptable, not
optimal.


>
> > wouldn't be a big deal in my mind if Modus 1.0 was not an "Enterprise
> > Class"
> > system if it is useful to a large swath of CF folks.
>
> It would be nice if Modus 2.0 was not radically different to Modus 1.0
> tho' so I think we need to get enough confidence in the APIs and
> architecture of Modus 1.0 in terms of basic performance - or the
> ability to improve performance without changing the API / architecture.

Oh, absolutely.  I think the API should be fairly stable before it's called
1.0 -- I am talking about making extensions to it in 2.0 and/or putting more
energy into the underlying machinery for 2.0.


>
> > Well, depends on what "fast" means.  Is less than 500 ms for a page
> > that
> > both displays all the press releases and has everything necessary to
> > edit
> > one (including having retrieved one from persistence to get it ready to
> > edit)?  For most applications that is acceptable performance.  Is it
> > great?
>
> I don't believe it's acceptable.

Hmm, we'll have to agree to disagree.  The vast majority of ColdFusion sites
never deal with many simultaneous requests.  I think 500ms should be a
ceiling, but it is within a range for a "heavy" page that is not out of
bounds, IMO.  What would an acceptable ceiling be for you?  I'm actually a
little surprised given how many pages on macromedia.com don't possibly load
faster.  Well, they may load faster on the server, but then the Flash movie
has to "load" -- the perceived time on MANY pages (including the home page)
at macromedia.com is well over 1 second, no??