1) You'll have to use the fully qualified name, because it's not in the same package/directory as the compnent referencing it 2) yes 3) I have no idea
Personally, I always create a defined superclass and "declare" it abstract using an attribute in the CFCOMPONENT tag. That lends itself to better typechecking as well, because valid classes must explicitly declare a superclass to extend, so it'll both ensure that your classes do that, and trim the domain of allowed CFCs down, because every CFC won't be legal. I've also found that there is almost always common functionality that can be placed in that superclass, rather than in every decendant class, particularly when you're dealing with content objects. Cheers, barneyb > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Lucas > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 7:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Base cfcomponent return type > > Thanks Barney. > > 3 more questions: > 1) Should I use the fully qualified typename, or just 'component'? > 2) Is this typename public and documented? > 3) Is this type name valid for a method's return type and an > argument's type? > ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words '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]
