>> I have fn as a prefix because it's the naming convention I use for >> JavaScript, SQL and CF - I just like to stick to it, makes it very >> easy to read, within in one glance I see the object and function..
>Bleurgh!! two points: 1) at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you call it. If it's returning a value, the caller code might actually be calling a "getter" for a property, not a "function" at all. if it's a trigger then it's just a call to a subroutine. to take this further: .fnDoThis() .propGetThat() (IMHO PropertyName() looks better than getPropertyValue() anyday) 2) which gets back to what Sean was saying. Using "this" scope has it's limits. Quick 'n'easy if you're tying it to a controller CFC, although you hardly ever need to. But all variables scope access really needs setters and getters (just like the ton's in VB). I miss VB-type properties and uninheritable private scopes and I'm a bit dissapointed with what CFPROPERTY can do. as a related issue, we've got a central CFC that's in server scope that takes care of (simple) error handeling (catch the error, redirect user, send support email). All persist (DB) CFC's roll back everything. To make this work, we're referencing the (single) CFC in the Application.cfm request.kernel = server.kernel just a thought or three cheers barry.b --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
