More "inline answers"....
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [CFCDev] "this" scope vs. unnamed > On Thursday, Jul 31, 2003, at 05:37 US/Pacific, John Farrar wrote: > > Also, the private, remote, ect. features of the functions in the cfc's > > do > > not match the standard names of the UDF values. > > Could you explain what you mean? In UML these are the "Visibility" definitions... (+) public - usabile by others (#) protected - usable only by objects that inherit (-) private - usable only by this object (the symbol on the left is the standard UML notation for the uml visibility) In CFC's all base attributes are (+)... if you have access to the CFC. The methods (<cffunction>s) are one of a number of settings... (private, package, public, remote). While the reason for the differences makes sense... it means the standard UML tools are not appropriate for modeling at this point. IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE A GOOD MODELING TOOL FOR CFCs! Back to the topic... private and public are simular... but the variation on protected for UML and package & remote for CFCs is a simular but unequal variation. Does that make sense? NOW... Since in your other email you explained the "Java" model, that explains where they were coming from... so much of the UML issue is rendered mute... because JAVA alignment seems to be the goal here. (Is that right?) John Farrar ---------------------------------------------------------- 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).
