Since our goal is to develop a very flexible "drag-and-drop" type of application where we can add sites on the fly, we have decided to go with the returntype="any". Since we know it will work for us now and if later MM were to pull the rug from under us, well, I guess we will deal with it then.
On 12/17/05, Patrick McElhaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/16/05, William Langshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My ultimate question is: how "safe" and "reliable" is using > > returntype="any"? > > Who said anything about safe? 'Course it isn't safe. But it's good. > > The only way to know for sure is to try. I've tried specifying the > returntype and leaving it out (the default is "any"). I've had more > success leaving it out. > > > Is it a big performance hit too? > > Not at all. > > Patrick > > -- > Patrick McElhaney > 704.560.9117 > http://pmcelhaney.weblogs.us > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to > [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the > email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting > (www.cfxhosting.com). > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
