On Monday, August 18, 2003 1:56 PM (US Mountain) Sean A Corfield wrote:
> > Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if we could extend multiple CFCs?
>
> Argh!!! Noooooooooo!!!! Multiple inheritance BAD! Java learned from
> C++'s mistake and made sure you could only extend one base class (but
> you could implement multiple interfaces).
I'll take your word for it. We don't have multiple interfaces in CFMX,
right?
>
> >> Is it just for the 'convenience' of having a local alias for the data?
> > That, plus I can write my CFC so that it doesn't have to know it got
> > its
> > data from cache, once it has it. Just one function call and one other
> > minor
> > change and from then on it's like any other non-cached CFC.
>
> Hmm, OK. And you're comfortable now that you're just keeping a local
> reference ('instance') to the cached data - you're not actually trying
> to copy the data into your instance each time?
It always was just a local reference. Remember? You were the one trying to
get me to do a deep copy, and I wouldn't do it!
----------------------------------------------------------
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).
