Anyhow, back to the original question.
In other OO language, we wouldn't be having this debate about UDFs because, well, most OO languages (C++ being the most visible exception) don't allow you to create UDFs. They would be methods of an object. Since CF however has all sorts of non-OO ways of doing things, it tends to muddy up the issue. If you're going for a simple OO way of defining what many people call "utility" methods, you'd simply make up a package like "com.yourcompany.util" and stuff your UDFs in there as methods of one or more objects. Then you could instantiate those objects and place those instances in, say, the application scope. I highly recommend that you go a step futher and create package names that group related functionality together, for example, all string related UDFs end up in a com.yourcompany.util.string package. (Sean, this isn't meant as a direct reply to your response; I can't find a response that has to do with the original question anymore :) ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]
