RE: [coldbox:13432] Re: More conventions needed, have asked since 2.6.3

This doesn’t mean anyone else is forced to follow this rule, it just means there is support there for those who want to continue with best practices. I am not asking for everyone else to agree on their methods of development, I am just asking for the ability to allow for it.

Andrew, this thread has been going a number of directions, and I’ve tried to follow all of it. I don’t want to get too off in the weeds, so I’ll cut to the chase. We value your input and discussion about the conventions for models, services, entities, etc and we feel that the best approach for ColdBox to cover the broad swath of uses of the framework is to provide people with a “models” convention and allow them to customize from there. We don’t want to get too deep into how people’s models are organized and we feel that WireBox is super flexible and will allow for all sort of setups that are desired by different programmers.

So, as far as we can tell, we already “allow” for everything you are asking for and we want to keep the base conventions pretty simple. Adding a new convention is as easy as creating the directory and setting up your scan locations, mappings, or ORM CFCLocations to use it.

If CF ORM scanning times are a concern for a developer, they are free to organize their CFCs in a manner that allows them to specify only the directories they need to be scanned but we don’t feel the need to account for that sort thing out-of-the-box right now.

Also, for my sake, could you elaborate on your interceptor that you mentioned? What is it that you are needing the interceptor to accomplish and how does the “models” convention require the interceptor to achieve what you need?




No you don’t allow for everything and that is the problem.

I don’t need the interceptor to do anything, I would like to see ColdBox adopt the same conventions as grails, and have services configurable as core as plugins, handlers etc. That’s all it boils down too.