On 6/6/06, Munson, Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The thing that bothered me about that study is that there was no > straight CF implementation tested. I'm going to sound like a broken > record, but it /is/ possible to write good code using just plain CF.
Perhaps you could share your definition of "straight/plain CF"? I see a few obvious definitions (later ones implying earlier ones): 1) not using non-CFML code 2) not using third party non-application CFML code (FB, M2, MG, etc.) 3) not using non-application CFML code (i.e. generic framework code) 4) not using 'extensibility' CFML features (custom tags, CFCs, UDFs) 5) not using CFINCLUDE There are others, of course. Which is the one you're referring to? cheers, barneyb -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 100 invites. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:242702 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
