Nat, Also, the private, remote, ect. features of the functions in the cfc's do not match the standard names of the UDF values. Some do, but others don't. That will make the old concept of fUseboxML an issue. Im supprised the old crew that was pushing that did not bring that to light in the original Coldfusion MX beta. To late to correct it now, but standard UML will not model the CFCs correctly. (Won't model that now... it would confuse the JAVA topic... but brought it up because I would like to see if the Java terms work well with the standard UML definitions.)
John Farrar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nat Papovich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:09 AM Subject: RE: [CFCDev] "this" scope vs. unnamed > I've seen quite a few references to how the "private"-ness of the > variables scope in CFCs (talking RedSky here) is not quite like Java's > private or protected scopes. I am something of a "n00b" (haxor-speak!) > when it comes to Java, so would anyone care to compare and contrast the > aforementioned scopes in Java and CF? I (and surely others) would be > greatful. > > Thanks, > NAT ---------------------------------------------------------- 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).
