OK -- but let's not confuse the matter here. Are you advocating storing things like "firstName" as public data members? If not, you might want to clarify since the people asking the questions aren't thinking about comparing CFCs to Java (which is an exercise done far too often, IMO) -- they want to know the "best practices" for their every day development of CFCs.
Once someone knows the best practices and the reasons for them they can feel free, of course, to break the rules. Since CFCs (and CFML) don't have constants that's not a very good example, IMO. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Matt Liotta > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [CFCDev] "this" scope vs. unnamed > > > There are many perfectly valid reasons for using public fields in an > object. For example, many classes in the Java hierarchy use public > fields for constants. In fact, I find it quite annoying when class > authors require bit-based states without representing those states with > constants. > > -Matt ---------------------------------------------------------- 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).
