to call methods and reference public variables (anything in the 'this'
scope) on that component.
If you don't explicitly specify a parent, your component will extend a CFC
in the WEB-INF directory (check the cfcexplorer for details), so super is
always valid.
Super is new in CFMX 6.1, and had some bug with passing variables up. I'm
not sure of the specifics, as I've yet to really use inheritance in CFCs, as
the scoping rules make it quite troublesome to do effectively.
Cheers,
barneyb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:26 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: extends + init() = returntype confusion
>
> Barney,
> This is the first I've seen/heard a "super" qualifier. What
> does it point
> to/stand for?
>
> Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:18 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: extends + init() = returntype confusion
>
>
> First, IMHO, having init() return a reference to 'this' is
> bad style. It
> only makes things more confusing.
>
> But to answer your question, you should have init() return
> the type of the
> current CFC. When you call super.init(), you shouldn't be
> returning. ALL
> your init methods should follow this format:
>
> <cffunction name="init" ... Returntype="typeOfThisCFC">
> <cfargument ... />
> ...
> <cfset var ... />
> ...
> <cfset super.init() />
>
> <!--- any initialization for this object --->
>
> <cfreturn this />
> </cffunction>
>
> Super.init() should ALWAYS be the first thing in the
> method, except for
> 'var' declarations, if you need any.
>
> Cheers,
> barneyb
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jamie Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:09 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: CFC: extends + init() = returntype confusion
> >
> > This could be a dumb question, but I'm 2 days into putting CFCs to
> > real 00 use.
> >
> > When you are extending a component (with "extends"), and
> you are also
> > using the init() function convention, do you need to override the
> > init() function for all children (in order to get the correct
> > returntype)? If so, seems you could use introspection in
> the parent
> > class to dynamically determing the return type, so that each child
> > would correctly inherit the init().
> >
> > So am I off-track? What's the normal way to do it?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jamie
> >
> >
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
