On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:07:47 +1300, Adam Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is all very good reasoning (and paints a broader picture than I was > thinking in terms of). However I would still argue the toss re web-browser > calls. They expect string data and if it's already string data: leave it > alone.
You could always file an enhancement request. I can certainly see an argument for simply displaying a string result directly in a browser but WDDX-encoding anything else. Or maybe WDDX-encoding only complex data types. But I still feel it's more consistent to always do the same thing. > Well we're going to have to agree on varying mileage there. :) I generally work with a browser that doesn't try to auto-format XML (Safari) so, for me, WDDX displays just as text so I hadn't really noticed the WDDX-ness. But it raises the question of what your CFC returns that you would want it displayed to the browser? Does it return a full-formed HTML document? If not, why would you want to display it to your users? If it does, then it isn't exactly a result that's going to be very useful to many callers - so you might as well simply output it inside the method (and not return anything). -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Got Gmail? -- I have 1 invite "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ---------------------------------------------------------- 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]
