Thanks Barney. I did once use an included constants file as you described but have moved on to a object version of it. I suppose it encapsulates how the constants are created, but does have the extra level of indirection you described.
I had another thought about this; I am not keen on changing all of our current object to extend a base object so what about having a function getConstants() mixed into all of the existing objects. The object factory could add a getConstants() function to each object as they are requested. I haven't tried this before but I assume it would work? Something like this in the factory: <cfset object.getConstants = applicationConstants.getConstants> Regards Kevan On Nov 26, 4:13 pm, "Barney Boisvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A third option would be to have an app_constants.cfm file that every > CFC includes in the psuedo-constructor area. An object that contains > constants is kind of a kludge in my opinion (though one that I've > definitely used, and do so to this day ;) ). This is somewhat > analogous to an static import in Java, and feels a bit better to me. > This approach also allows you to simply dereference the constants > directly without needing to scope them onto whatever object contains > them. > > cheers, > barneyb > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
