I'm coming in mid-thread here so my apologies if this has been covered.....
AFAIK UDFs generally process fatser than custom tags. Is the same the case when using CFCs instead of a UDF? or does a CFC process slower (like custom tags)? Now isn't using a CFC instead of a UDF just like using a custom tag? We still have a central "black box" if you will and we still have inputs and outputs? I realize there are some differences revolving around variable scopes when using custom tags, but other than that they all seem to accomplish the same goal (some faster than others). Can you tell I don't come from an OOP background ;-) Thanks for any clarification Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------- Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com --------------------------------------------------------- Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan G. Switzer, II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 11:23 AM Subject: RE: CFMX - Function Best Practice ? > You can still create a UDF using CFFUNCTION. You're always going to find > a use for UDFs, cause even in C++ not *everything* makes sense to have > as an object. > > One key feature to the CFFUNCTION is it allows you to create some UDFs > you could never create before. For example, you can now create a UDF > that uses the <CFWDDX> tag (for that matter any other tag that didn't > have a CFSCRIPT compatible syntax.) > > As for which is better, a CFC or a UDF--it depends. CFCs give you many > advantages over just creating a UDF, but that may not always mean a CFC > is the most appropriate architectural choice. There are times when using > an oo-based approach to solve a task may be extreme overkill, and > writing a straight UDF makes much more sense. > > For example, if I just need a function to calculate a value based upon a > list, a UDF seems to make more sense than trying to create an object for > the one functionality. However, if that list of values relates to some > object and there's lots of manipulation required to that same set of > data, then creating a re-usable component makes a lot of sense (since > you can then use oo-based principles, by creating an instance of that > data, which you can manipulate.) > > In a nutshell, I don't think UDFs are going anywhere and CFCs don't > necessarily replace them. > > -Dan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joshua Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 12:52 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: CFMX - Function Best Practice ? > > > > Hello, > > > > I'm a little confused with all the new CFFUNCTION ability in CFMX - I > > know it's more extensible than UDFs as it can be used for WebServices, > > etc., but what is the best practice for creating functions? Are UDF > > functions going by the wayside after such a short lifespan or do they > > serve two seperate purposes now? Is it best to use CFC or UDF when not > > needing remote consumption or access? Is there a processing difference > > between the two? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Joshua Miller > > Web Development :: Programming > > Eagle Web Development LLC > > www.eaglewd.com <http://www.eaglewd.com/> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (304) 622-5676 (Clarksburg Office) > > (304) 456-4942 (Home Office) > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
