On Thursday, Sep 26, 2002, at 11:32 US/Pacific, Benoit Hediard wrote:
I was wondering if anyone know when MM is going to fix all the issues
related to CFC scopes.
Red Sky is coming soon. I can't say whether it will fix all your
problems - due to the NDA (although some of the issues you mention
My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. - Yoda
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 4:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: So many problems with CFC scopes...
On Thursday, Sep 26, 2002, at 11:32 US/Pacific, Benoit
: RE: So many problems with CFC scopes...
For what reason? I've jumped in mid-thread here, but I'm
really keen to get
some good nitty-gritty low-down on the pros/cons/appropriate
contexts for
custom tags/UDFs/CFCs.
I've had access to CF5 for a while, but most of my clients
have been stuck
/coldfusion/patterns/part3.htm
Benoit Hediard
www.benorama.com
-Message d'origine-
De : Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : dimanche 29 septembre 2002 21:06
À : CF-Talk
Objet : RE: So many problems with CFC scopes...
For what reason? I've jumped in mid-thread here, but I'm
- Original Message -
From: Benoit Hediard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:26 AM
Subject: UDF Vs CFC (was RE: So many problems with CFC scopes...)
I agree with you Raymond.
But it is true that is more personal
www.benorama.com
-Message d'origine-
De : Gyrus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : lundi 30 septembre 2002 14:03
À : CF-Talk
Objet : Re: UDF Vs CFC (was RE: So many problems with CFC scopes...)
Benoit, thanks for the summary of your rules-of-thumb for CF modularisation.
I'll check out
But, in some cases CFCs might be more appropriate than UDF to encapsulate
generic logic : when you need to have an object-oriented logic.
Indeed, the advantage of CFCs over UDFs is their ability to have (or
simulate) an 'object-oriented/object-based' behaviour.
For example, CFC are great to
by the old CFC instance.
You have to reload a new instance to get the new definition.
Benoit Hediard
-Message d'origine-
De : S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : lundi 30 septembre 2002 18:23
À : CF-Talk
Objet : RE: UDF Vs CFC (was RE: So many problems with CFC scopes
On Sunday, Sep 29, 2002, at 12:06 US/Pacific, Raymond Camden wrote:
You mentioned typing the extra reference for CFCs (i.e.
myCFC.isEmail(...)
as opposed to isEmail() for a UDF). Beyond that
There's also the code needed to create the 'myCFC' instance (setting
myCFC =
On Monday, Sep 30, 2002, at 09:23 US/Pacific, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
Question: (dunno if anyone has the answer to this) Do CFC's share
methods in
memory, or does each new component created have its own instances of
all the
functions defined in the cfc which take up their own space in
subsequent page loads.
As a side note, I tested CFML tag based UDFs vs. CFSCRIPT based UDFs too,
and the CFSCRIPT UDFs executed slightly faster than their tag based
cousins.
-Rob
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:26:29 +0200
From: Benoit Hediard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: UDF Vs CFC (was RE: So many problems
On Monday, Sep 30, 2002, at 20:09 US/Pacific, Rob Brooks-Bilson wrote:
I did some performance testing recently too see if it was faster to
CFINCLUDE a UDF library containing 50 UDFs, or instantiate a CFC with
the
same 50 CFCs as methods. The results were that the CFINCLUDE was
On Monday, Sep 30, 2002, at 09:23 US/Pacific, S. Isaac
Dealey wrote:
Question: (dunno if anyone has the answer to this) Do
CFC's share
methods in
memory, or does each new component created have its own
instances of
all the
functions defined in the cfc which take up their own
space in
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
- Original Message -
From: Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Again - my main comment is that it's wrong to say you should NOT uses
UDFs. I wouldn't use
a CFC as a UDF library, but I don't see it as bad per se, just maybe not
appropriate.
For what reason?
For what reason? I've jumped in mid-thread here, but I'm
really keen to get
some good nitty-gritty low-down on the pros/cons/appropriate
contexts for
custom tags/UDFs/CFCs.
I've had access to CF5 for a while, but most of my clients
have been stuck
on CF4.5 hosts, so I've not really
).
That's just a matter of choice, but I may change my mind...
Benoit Hediard
www.benorama.com
-Message d'origine-
De : Samuel Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : samedi 28 septembre 2002 05:26
À : CF-Talk
Objet : RE: So many problems with CFC scopes...
Mark,
That actually won't
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
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,
I think I forgot some other problems with CFCs linked to UDF lib functions.
It took me sometime to understand why I was not able to include UDF lib in
some cases.
- CFC methods defined in an included file cannot really include UDF lib.
Indeed, CF refuses to include twice the same UDF lib in one
I'm going to look the other issues up in the bugbase in the next few
days and see what's there but I'll address these issues here...
On Friday, Sep 27, 2002, at 02:36 US/Pacific, Benoit Hediard wrote:
- CFC methods defined in an included file cannot really include UDF
lib.
Indeed, CF
-Message d'origine-
De : Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : vendredi 27 septembre 2002 19:39
À : CF-Talk
Objet : Re: So many problems with CFC scopes...
I'm going to look the other issues up in the bugbase in the next few
days and see what's there but I'll address
.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Benoit Hediard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: So many problems with CFC scopes...
I'm going to look the other issues up in the bugbase in the next few
days and see what's there but I'll
Indeed, this is also another solution, probably the best one right now!
Benoit Hediard
-Message d'origine-
De : Gaulin, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Envoyé : vendredi 27 septembre 2002 21:24
À : CF-Talk
Objet : RE: So many problems with CFC scopes...
Why not put the not IsDefined
).
HTH,
Sam
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:24:00 -0400
From: Gaulin, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: So many problems with CFC scopes...
Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why not put the not IsDefined() test right inside any udf library that
can
potentially be included more than one time? (Just put
25 matches
Mail list logo
