> having some properties and certain behaviors. The idea is to
> keep those two tightly combined in one logical unit.
> Instantiation is another core behavior - creating and using a
> particular instance of a class(object) makes perfect sense.
> After all a class is but a template.
> With that in mind- <cfinvoke> is blasphemy in the name of
> Object Orientation!
> <cfinvoke> encourages the design and usage of CFCs as a mere
> collection of (potentially unrelated) functions. Without
> instantiation, initialization of properties and proper use of
> instance methods, of what benefit is a CFC?
> You could always use a UDF instead or even a custom tag.
You are aware, I hope, that cfinvoke can be used with an instance of a CFC.
As for calling a method w/o an instance, isn't this how web services work?
As for a collection of unrelated UDFs - shoot - even in Java I could build a
class with methods that are unrelated.
As for using a CFC as a collection of related UDFs - how is this bad?? It
reminds me of static methods in Java.
-Raymond Camden
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
