Thanks very much for the clear description. Of course I knew about CF's variable scopes and method access attribute, but drawing the comparison with Java is very insightful.
Thanks, NAT > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean A Corfield > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:27 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [CFCDev] "this" scope vs. unnamed > > > In Java, you have public, package, protected and private. > These access > specifiers are consistent across methods and data and mean, > approximately: > * public means anyone can access the method (or data). > * package means any class in the package can access the method (or > data). > * protected means any class derived from that class can access the > method (or data). > * private means only that class can access the method (or data). > > First big difference, CF uses access specifiers for methods > but scopes > for data. > > Second, in CF, data is either part of the unnamed scope (in > which case > it is similar to protected data in Java) or "this" scope (in > which case > it is similar to public data in Java). > > Third, CF allows methods to be declared with public, package, private > and remote access. Of these, public and package correspond roughly to > Java's public and package access specifiers but CF's private > corresponds to Java's protected and remote means "very public" :) A > remote method is a public method that can also be called as a Web > Service or via Flash Remoting. > > The analogy isn't 100% accurate (because CF is not Java). Note also > that Java's access specifiers do not behave quite the same as C++'s, > just to add a little more confusion :) > > Hope that helps? ---------------------------------------------------------- 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).
