To me (and also partially just playing devil's advocate here) the
inclusion of native CF functions and constructs in the XML muddies the
waters, perhaps unnecessarily or with too little benefit to justify
doing it. Have you run into anything that you *can't* do that this
approach would solve, or is this method of doing things just more
convenient in some cases in your mind?
On 9/22/06, Jared Rypka-Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just talked to Chris about this and he suggested I post
it to the list to see what sort of response it gets... "run
it up the flagpole and see who salutes" I guess. ;)
I'm thinking that it would be very handy sometimes to use
CF-native functions in the XML as arguments to property or
constructor-arg tags... like this:
<property name="inputArray">
<value>$${listToArray("1,2,3,4,5")}</value>
</property>
The $${} would work like the $${} syntax does in CFE
snippets... except that asking for user input, CS would ask
CF to evaluate whatever lies between { and }. There are
various times when this would be handy, especially since it
could be used like this:
<value>myString_$${createUUID()}</value>
It may need to be restricted by what's returned from
getFunctionsList() (if that actually works right these
days, cuz once upon a time it didn't)... otherwise you
might end up with people doing things like this:
<value>$${this.getSomeProperty()}</value>
<value>$${session.userId}</value>
The main reason I asked was because I wanted to do
something like this:
<constructor-arg name="LogFileName">
<value>MyObjectResultLog_$${now()}</value>
</constructor-arg>
Just a thought... don't worry about shooting it down if you
don't like it, it's no big deal.
Laterz,
J
--
Matt Woodward
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mattwoodward.com
