Looking into this some more, this won't allow you to pass in unamed
arguments dynamically, such as from oMM... so maybe it's not as useful
as I had originally thought.
Mark
On 10/23/07, Mark Mandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay... amazing what comes out when you actually test something out.
>
> I don't know *how* this works, but apparently it does.
>
> I wrote a quick CFC called 'A' It looks like:
>
> <cfcomponent output="false">
>
> <cffunction name="init" hint="Constructor" access="public"
> returntype="A" output="false">
> <cfscript>
> instance = StructNew();
>
> instance.test = "test";
>
> return this;
> </cfscript>
> </cffunction>
>
> <cffunction name="dynamic" hint="" access="public" returntype="void"
> output="false">
> <cfscript>
> var func = variables["test"];
> var ret = 0;
>
> func("dynamic");
> </cfscript>
> </cffunction>
>
> <cffunction name="getInstance" hint="" access="public"
> returntype="struct" output="false">
> <cfreturn instance />
> </cffunction>
>
> <cffunction name="test" hint="" access="public" returntype="void"
> output="false">
> <cfargument name="test" hint="" type="string" required="Yes">
> <cfscript>
> instance.test = arguments.test;
> </cfscript>
> </cffunction>
>
> </cfcomponent>
>
> First things first:
>
> <cfscript>
> a = createObject("component", "A").init();
> </cfscript>
>
> <cfdump var="#a.getInstance()#">
>
> Dumps out:
> TEST test
>
> Next...
>
> <cfscript>
> a.test("thing");
> </cfscript>
>
> <cfdump var="#a.getInstance()#">
>
> Dumps out:
> TEST thing
>
> Next.. and the weird one:
>
> <cfscript>
> a.dynamic();
> </cfscript>
>
> <cfdump var="#a.getInstance()#">
>
> Dumps out:
> TEST dynamic
>
> What the? This is very cool, but I don't get it! The setting of the
> function to a local var scope variable still allows it access to the
> parent CFC's instance scope... and lets it change it as it needs to.
>
> This will be very handy for things like onMM, but I'm totally shocked
> it actually works...
>
> So guess this was actually the way to go.
>
> Bizarre!
>
> Mark
>
> On 10/23/07, Baz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey Brian, you are right that the problem could be solved using a convention
> > of always using the method name as the argument name, or even deciding on a
> > single generic argument name like "Value". But imagine if you were building
> > a shared object that will be used by other members of your team, in my case
> > a generic data object that can either pull from the variables.instance
> > scope, or, if so defined, can use a custom function to set the value. Well
> > you could teach everyone a convention/methodology to achieve this, but why
> > not make it as intuitive as possible and just send a single un-named
> > argument, as any setter method expects. That way your coders don't have to
> > remember random syntax and can focus on the core of the problem. It just
> > makes the user experience better.
> >
> > On an un-related side-note, I think this is the first time I've noticed TAG
> > syntax not being able to accomplish something that SCRIPT syntax can -
> > usually its the other way around.
> >
> > Baz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Interesting, I hadn't really run into a situation like that before! Most
> > of my dynamic method calls tend to be autopopulating beans, or calling a
> > method and passing an argumentCollection. Hadn't gotten into chains of
> > dynamic method calls (but maybe I will now heh).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/22/07, Sean Corfield < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/22/07, Brian Kotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I'm still a bit fuzzy though on why you would be calling a method
> > whose
> > > > > arguments you would "never know" the names of.
> > > >
> > > > I run into that a lot - in dynamic programming you know nothing about
> > > > the methods you are calling beyond the name and approximate calling
> > > > sequence. I use getMetadata() on the function to find its arguments.
> > > > See:
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://org-corfield-cfmx.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/wwwroot/org/corfield/component.cfc
> > > >
> > > > The call() method handles arbitrary dynamic calls.
> > > > --
> > > > Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
> > > > An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
> > > >
> > > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
> > > > -- Margaret Atwood
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
>
>
> --
> E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> W: www.compoundtheory.com
>
--
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W: www.compoundtheory.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"CFCDev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
