Well, I agree and disagree at the same time I suppose. I honestly believe that most folks on here found ways of making their code modular using different frameworks. Mainly by the use of <cfmodule> and <cfinclude>. For me, I really do not care one way or another as far as using CFC's, I think alot of it though is overplay. It seems to me to be alot easier to write queries and do an <cfinclude> then it is to write out <cfcomponent><cffunction><cfargument> etc. etc. I think if a developer is getting into SOAP and other things like that, then the use of CFC's would be more needed. Of couse that is just my view.
Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peterson, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:59 AM Subject: RE: CFC's > Wow, both our replies had the same thoughts, and we even both said > 'old-school', ha! > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Champagne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:01 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFC's > > I think the exact opposite. CFC's have increased my code reusability, > which > significantly speeds up my development time. Not to mention the ease of > maintenance that it brings to the table. Old-school "spaghetti code" > isn't > going to save you any time when it comes to maintenance and portability. > I'd > argue that CFC's speed up the rapid development that we've all come to > love > about CF. > > I also don't think that CFC's are that difficult to learn. Just like > regular coding, it takes time to learn the most efficient way to get > your > result, but the basics are not that daunting. > > Anyways, that's my (differing) opinion. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Doug Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:50 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: CFC's > > > > I came across this post where people were discussing the use of smith > as > an > > alternative to CFMX. Anyways, I was wondering what other peoples > thoughts > on > > the subject were. I have to agree that Macromedia Coldfusion is kind > of > getting > > away from what made CFML so popular and that was rapid developement. > It > > seems that it is taking me twice as long to write alot of the code > (using > CFC's) > > then it did before hand, and the complication level has also > increased. I > am afraid > > to look at CFMX 8 as I feel that OO is the way CF is going. > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:263739 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
