> Yeah - that don't work. Actually it's because it doesn't work that > we're having this conversation. ;^)
:-))) > However I'm not sure if just relative paths would really help all that > much (and could be bigger headaches), for several reasons: > > When you're just instantiating or extending, it makes perfect sense, but > how would you standardized CFC type checking with relative paths? I would be set, because I don't have a strong need use CFCs as argument values, at least not yet. But I really see your point > I would dearly love to see some elegant for dealing with fully qualified > paths on a shared environment, but I really think there's a definite > need for fully qualified, rather than relative, paths. Can we get both, please? :-) You bring some very valuable points. As for me, I don't pretend to define the solution, bringing attention to the issue is my primary goal. Massimo ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]
