When I say "secretary", I meant it jokingly and implied, I would appreciate it if some else would do it, unfortunately taken literally. But Matt Liotta seems such a person that he prefers to refer others as objects "he is > interested in and he didn't submit a request for it. > " If you know my name use my NAME or you don't have to talk about me (I didn't ask you to). I don't like individuals belittling others. --- Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Typing too fast again. > > <cfset message=listInsertAt(message,"=)" > ,3,"#chr(10)#")> > > =) > > Jerry Johnson > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/02/03 02:37PM >>> > Does anyone else want to chip in for some panty > untwisters. > > They definitely seem needed. > > Jerry Johnson > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/02/03 02:13PM >>> > Um, no it's not. You just read on the mailing list > what feature he is > interested in and he didn't submit a request for it. > > Matt Liotta > President & CEO > Montara Software, Inc. > http://www.montarasoftware.com/ > 888-408-0900 x901 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christian Cantrell > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 1:59 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: Some idea about the Efficiency of > UDFs > > > > Well, it's hard for us to know that you are > interested in a feature if > > you don't submit a request for it. I don't > consider submitting > feature > > requests to be secretary work, so I'll be happy to > take care of it. > > > > Christian > > > > On Thursday, January 2, 2003, at 12:10 PM, Li > Chunshen ((Don)) wrote: > > > > > Christian, > > > > > > No, I didn't submit it (I don't like to be a > > > secretary), you please, no, you are not a > secretary > > > either :) for that may be part of your job. > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Don Li > > > > > > --- Christian Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > >> Good point. You could always call the other > > >> functions using the same > > >> routine that CFM pages would be expected to > use, but > > >> I can see where it > > >> would be easier (more maintainable) to keep > several > > >> functions in a > > >> single file. I have several functions that > call > > >> other functions, and > > >> many of them are only one or two lines, so I'm > sure > > >> it would get > > >> annoying having directories full of files with > > >> functions containing > > >> only a single line. The idea Jim proposed gets > > >> around this limitation > > >> nicely (dir.file.function). > > >> > > >> Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Li, did you > > >> submit this, or shall I? > > >> > > >> Christian > > >> > > >> On Thursday, January 2, 2003, at 09:34 AM, Ben > Doom > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> One thing to think about: CF probably > shouldn't > > >> require one and only > > >>> one > > >>> UDF per file. Occasionally it makes sense for > me > > >> to write UDFs that > > >>> call > > >>> other UDFs (either because the functionality > > >> already exists, will be > > >>> needed > > >>> elsewhere, or it just makes the 'main' UDF > easier > > >> to read) and I > > >>> generally > > >>> include those subroutines in the same file. > If I > > >> had to have a > > >>> separate > > >>> file for each, it would be rather confusing > IMHO. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- Ben Doom > > >>> Programmer & General Lackey > > >>> Moonbow Software, Inc > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Christian Cantrell > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 6:01 PM > > >>> To: CF-Talk > > >>> Subject: Re: Some idea about the Efficiency of > > >> UDFs > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Interesting idea. So how exactly would this > work? > > >> Would ColdFusion > > >>> expect one function per file, with the > requirement > > >> that the file and > > >>> the function have the same name? Then you > could > > >> call any arbitrary > > >>> UDF, and the CF server would look in the > proper > > >> directory for the right > > >>> file, then execute the function in that file. > How > > >> else could this > > >>> work? > > >>> > > >>> Let's flesh it out a bit here, then I invite > you > > >> to submit your idea to > > >>> Macromedia at the following URL: > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/?6213=3 > > > >>> > > >>> Christian > > >>> > > >>> On Wednesday, January 1, 2003, at 04:40 PM, Li > > >> Chunshen ((Don)) wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> According to Macromedia's CFMX References on > > >> Using > > >>>> UDFs effectively: > > >>>> > > >>>> "Consider the following techniques for making > > >> your > > >>>> functions available to your ColdFusion pages: > > >>>> > > >>>> If you consistently call a small number of > UDFs, > > >>>> consider putting their definitions on the > > >>>> Application.cfm page. > > >>>> If you call UDFs in only a few of your > > >> application > > >>>> pages, do not include their definitions in > > >>>> Application.cfm. > > >>>> If you use many UDFs, put their definitions > on > > >> one or > > >>>> more ColdFusion pages that contain only UDFs. > You > > >> can > > >>>> include the UDF definition page in any page > that > > >> calls > > >>>> the UDFs. " > > >>>> > > >>>> I agree with everything it states, and I > think it > > >>>> might help more if CFMX predefines a UDF > library > > >> path > > >>>> such as UDFlib under CFMX installation > instead of > > >> an > > >>>> arbitrary directory, I can see several > benefits > > >> of > > >>>> this approach: > > >>>> consistency -- especially helpful for large > === message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
