> > However, I would strongly argue that in CFMX you really > > should no longer be using cfinclude'd UDF libraries. The > > libraries should be converted to CFCs. If you're worried > > about performance, don't be. > > This is 100% wrong. At least in my opinion. UDFs are NOT the > same beast as CFCs, and there are cases when you should use > one or the other.
Really? I think this argument is pretty compelling. I see no reason why you shouldn't use CFCs as "static" classes, or simply containers for UDFs that are related in some way or another. Personally, I think the idea of a static "Math" CFC is as useful as a CFINCLUDE that contains a bunch of math functions. In the worst case, it seems like six of one, a half dozen of another. I'm curious about your reasoning on this. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
