Ah, now THAT is a different matter. In general, I agree, it's a bad idea. However, if you are building a framework where a set of CFCs work together (in a package perhaps) then it may be safe. Spectra made heavy use of stuff like this - and I think it made sense since everything was so tightly wound together.
Another view on this - most of the custom tags I write that do DB stuff will use #application.dsn# or #request.app.dsn# for the datasource. Since the custom tag is _for_ the application, I don't feel bad about this at all. ======================================================================= Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:01 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question. > > > > I don't think that is what he is asking Ben. He is not talking about > > making the CFC depend on request vars, rather, he is talking about > > putting an instance of a CFC in the request scope. > > Sorry, I quoted the wrong section. I can definitely > understand using CFCs > in the request scope for that reason. Here's what I mean to quote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without > having to make > > an additional invoke/createObject call. > > > > > Ben Johnson > Hostworks, Inc. > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
