Actually CFMX CFC's do support inheritance. And CFC's are pretty close to Object Oriented, missing just a few nice features, I think in time we will see CFC's to have more of these features.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pete Freitag ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) CTO, CFDEV.COM ColdFusion Developer Resources http://www.cfdev.com/ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 4:37 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 > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.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
