Unless you are absolutely sure you want to output directly in your CFCBy that logic, shouldn't the output attribute default to false? In fact, I would go further to say that the output attribute should be removed entirely.
(which you should almost never want do) you should always set output="false"
in your CFFUNCTION tags.
Personally, even if it's a bad design decision to have "tri-state" logic, itSilly you say? Raymond the "jedimaster" didn't know, I didn't know, Sean didn't appear to know, Charlie didn't know, etc. Seems to me that plenty of high profile CFers didn't know.
seems silly to say people didn't know when it's very well documented exactly
how it works. Since you'll want to have output="false" in almost all cases
anyway, this hardly seems like the kind of show-stopping issue with CFCs you
make it out to be.
<rant>I'm not sure where you are seeing the FUD. I have been very clear and specific about the issues I see with CFCs. Pointing out issues doesn't seem to fit the definition of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. However, what does seem like FUD to me is the constant appeal to authority. Its not like Sean's team at Macromedia had the choice not to use CFMX. It is not like droves of OO developers from the Java world are suddenly using CFMX because of CFCs.
And lest anyone be scared off by the FUD, CFCs have been successfully used
in a huge variety of applications with great success. They are very useful
to OO veterans like Sean and his team at MACR, but I have seen them used
with great benefit by more typical CF folks who gain tremendous benefits
from them in the natural structure they bring to their code and the ways in
which they promote separating "logic" from "display" -- whether they have
interfaces and the other trappings of Java is an interesting academic
discussion, but for those of us just trying to build applications that
actually work, are actually maintainable, and actually get done in a
reasonable amount of time CFCs are the best thing to happen to ColdFusion
since the invention of custom tags.
</rant>
It certainly seems funny that it is now okay to state that CFCs in CFMX 6.1 are the real deal and that CFCs in CFMX were challenged. How many of you have made that statement, but never complained about CFCs before CFMX 6.1 was out? I know I'll get flamed as usual, but that is okay because I know people benefit from critical assessments more than they benefit from ignorance of a tool's problems. I too build applications that actually work, are actually maintainable, and actually get done in a reasonable amount of time, but I do so with full knowledge of my tool's strengths and weaknesses.
Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901
----------------------------------------------------------
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).
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
