I just think that calling it the "constructor area" is dangerous because it suggests to those that are new to working with CFCs that there is a true concept of constructors,
"pseudo-constructor" area is probably more accurate. Or "initialization" area (since it is run to 'initialize' each new component instance).
As far as I'm concerned the "Camden scope" is a better name because it doesn't suggest anything about that area that is not intended.
Except that it isn't a scope!
And what happens if Macromedia introduces a concept of a constructor that does not mimic what many developers are using now?
I'd love to see proper constructors. Proper constructors take arguments. The 'init()' idiom for Java objects can be used in CFCs to achieve that. You can't pass arguments into the "pseudo-constructor" area.
Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email.
CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
