OK, so what you are saying (in a different way) is (I hope), what I am doing is perfectly normal and as close to doing it the proper way as possible..
I believe init can be seen as [className]() constructor in Java, correct? It all seems to work now, in every class I now only have to call superInit() and it initializes the super class, like super.init( argumentsCollection = arguments ) should have done. -- Taco Fleur Senior Web Systems Engineer http://www.webassociates.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Cameron Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2004 1:45 PM To: CFAussie Mailing List Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Super( arguments collection ) > OK, every CFC should have an init method, right? > Wrong = tell me why not > Right = continue "Should have" is strong. "Might have". I think it's good practice in CFMX to have an init() method on all CFCs until they get constructors sorted out properly. And always get into the habit of instantiating an object via the init() method. BUt that's its own can of worms, so we'll leave that comment as is. > The init method should initialize the object, right? And every object > takes care of initializing its own, right? So we don't have the > grandchild initializing all just because he can, right? No, but you *might* want to do that, and it's entirely reasonable to want to. And even over and above init() methods, it's entirely reasonable to want to do it with normal methods too (pretending for a second that an init() method is actually a constructor, not just a "normal" method). Adam --- 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/ --- 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/
