Since I am feeling froggy.. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pseudo "not genuine but having the appearance of"
If we called it a constructor it certainly would be wrong but pseudo constructor is pretty freaking accurate. Crap (I know a very technical term) that falls inside cfcomponent but not inside a method declaration runs when an object is created and the end result is the object is returned and ready for use (by the CFML engine's terms). Its not a constructor but it sure has the appearance (or in this case behavior) of one. So I would argue it is pretty technically correct. Your opinions may vary and I am ok with that :) Adam Haskell On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Andrew Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am aware of that, I just don't need to agree with it. > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "pseudo constructor" is pretty much the de-facto way to describe code > that > > runs outside of any cffunction tags in a CFC. I'd actually argue that by > > trying to come up with yet another way to label it, you're inadvertently > > making it more confusing than it already is. Sometimes you just have to > obey > > the crowd. ;-) > > > > Regards, > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Andrew Scott < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > I wouldn't call that a pseudo constructor. I do realise thats what has > > > been adopted, does it make it right. No I don't believe so. > > > > > > Because technically it is not.... I do know that is what people are > > > saying, and for the life of me I do not know why. > > > > > > Consider this then.. > > > > > > > > > <cfcomponent> > > > ..... Set some local variables > > > > > > ..... Some private and public methods. > > > > > > </cfcomponent> > > > > > > By such definition, if we instantiate the above code and the > > > cfcomponent is a pseudo constructor. Then by that same definition we > > > would then have to say that the methods are now a nested class. > > > > > > just because Coldfusion doesn't have a constructor by default, doesn't > > > mean we should make it more confusing than it already is. i understand > > > why people are thinking this way, but I don't believe it should > > > continue in that manner either. > > > > > > Just my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:05 PM, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > No, he means the pseudo constructor, before and outside of any of > the > > > > methods within Application.cfc. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Andrew Scott > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > pseudo constructor? > > > > > > > > > > I think, you mean defined as local variables to that component. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles: > > > > http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:304427 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
