For the past two days there has been a very interesting thread being discussed on the Model-Glue mailing list. You have to read through the first few messages in the thread before you really start getting into the meat of the discussion, with some great comments from Sean Corfield and Peter Bell.

It goes back to the ongoing Design Patterns Debate, making it's way around the ColdFusion community. Many have adopted the Table Row Pattern, used by popular ORMs, almost as a standard for development. But is this the right way to go with ColdFusion? Are we writing too much code to accomplish simple tasks?

Sean takes some responsibility for this thought process, believing that some of this has stemmed from his Mach-II Development Guidelines doc while at Adobe. While that may be somewhat true, I think that it probably stems more from the fact that OO is still fairly new to the ColdFusion world. While we've been capable of writing OO code since the introduction of CFCs in 6.1, adoption of the concept has been slow, and only truly picked up major steam over the last two years or more.

In the thread, Sean knocks on the large adoption of the 5:1 business object concept. He doesn't state that it's completely wrong, only that it may be overkill in most cases, and should not be the end-all-be-all. While the Bean-DAO-Gateway paradigm may be great for simple CRUD type operations, and simple table fillers, it's not well suited to complex objects. A Factory approach may be a better option. The primary point is, there is No One Way, and that we shouldn't pigeon hole ourselves into design patterns that are primarily designed for Java, when ColdFusion (being typeless) has more in common with languages like Ruby, Python or Groovy.

There is no One Way, or even Wrong Way, and maybe it's time for all of us to begin thinking outside the box again. We can build great, rapid, OO applications, if we just start doing it.

I've paraphrased some stuff here, so if I've gotten someone's comments wrong, or completely mixed up, I apologize now and please feel free to correct me.