Well there's the rub. I don't want CF to have anything OO like. If I wanted OO, I would use JSP. What they are done with CFCs is offer bastardized OO.
-Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:37 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: I like CFMX > > I don't think MM wants to have CF be like an OO language, thus the lack > of inheritance, interfaces, abstract classes. > > Mind you, it sure would be nice. Sometimes I could just kill for some > OO-like functionality in CF. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:24 pm > Subject: I like CFMX > > > After the recent thread I thought I would clarify my position on > > CFMX. I > > do indeed like it. In fact, all of my new development has been on CFMX > > beta 3 since it came out. Further, I was able to successfully port all > > of my CF 5 applications to CFMX with only minor changes. > > > > I disagree with the plan of moving CF over to J2EE, but we are > > here now, > > so that is a moot point. I do think/know that CF 5 out > > performances CFMX > > on a single server. However, the type of applications I build with CF > > will be more scalable with CFMX thanks to J2EE. If you see this as a > > contradiction, I'm sorry; there is a fundamental difference between > > performance and scalability. > > > > I am glad we as CF developers finally have native access to XML > > and Web > > services. However, there are some interopablility issues with CFMX > > basedWeb services you should be aware of. I can give details in > > other mail if > > you would like. I have been using a CFMX based Web service in > > productionsince the release of beta 3. Since CFMX Web services are > > based on Apache > > Axis, I am sure the interoperability issues will be worked out soon. > > > > CFCs are both a good thing and bad for CF developers. While it is > > greatthat you can now encapsulate your logic into a component, you > > are left > > feeling cheated. In Java, a developer has the ability to create > > not only > > classes, but also interfaces and abstract classes. We need the ability > > to create CFC interfaces and abstract CFCs. Further, CFC > > inheritance is > > broken IMHO, as CFCs don't inherit private methods and properties. > > Additionally, I would have liked to see constructors and > > destructors as > > well as some sort of built-in way to serialize and deserialize CFCs. > > Yes, I am aware that you can do pseduo constructors, but you cannot > > build a constructor takes parameters. > > > > Think that is enough for now. > > > > -Matt > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
