Beside requiring changes to existing code, many of the tags in CFML
are implemented as regular CFML custom tags -- they're in one of the
directories in your cfmx installation, although I don't remember which
offhand. Which means implementing the <cfsetting version="5.0"> tag
would require modifications to both languages, and some way to
communicate to the cfml pages via likely a cgi variable what version
is currently being processed... Nevermind that providing this
functionality would over the course of time create rather bloated,
spaghettied, inefficient code within the server's core components,
It'd drive me mad to have to constantly be informing other developers
who hadn't become aware of the tag that their code may not be working
because of a <cfsetting> tag anywhere in their request and that they
need to check a cgi variable to determine what version is currently in
use in their request. You'd end up seeing all kinds of custom tags
where the version is set at the beginning (and hopefully end) of the
tag, so the server would constantly be switching back and forth
between versions during any given request, potentially soaking up lots
of extra cycles in the process. And heaven forbid you get a bunch of
custom tags from someone with "enough knowledge to be dangerous" and
they set the version at the beginning of the tag but not at the end or
they set it in both places and then cfexit the tag in the middle
without resetting it first. From a support and maintenance standpoint
-- really from any angle I can think of to look at it, this is a
logistical nightmare.
> Aw c'mon Dave -- be reasonable, application.cfm &
> onRequestEnd.cf,
> Even I can understand that.
> Dick
> On Aug 7, 2004, at 7:29 PM, Dave Watts wrote:
>> > To me, backward compatibility means a new version runs
>> > prior version
>> > code just like the prior version -- not that the new
>> > version
>> additions
>> > will run on a prior version.
>> >
>> > I meant that new version of CF could accept prior
>> > version syntax,
>> > assumptions. etc, by enclosing the target code within
>> > tags that
>> > specified that the compiler should treat the enclosed
>> > code as the
>> > indicated prior version.
>>
>> But that would require that you change the code - having
>> to enclose
>> the
>> target code would be a change to that code.
>>
>> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
>> http://www.figleaf.com/
>> phone: 202-797-5496
>> fax: 202-797-5444
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
