Those enhancements were added in 6.1.3 and 6.0.18. You'll find them in farcry/core/Application.cfc.
On 8 August 2012 15:47, Bobby Heath <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I have an older version as well then. I don't have the > onMissingTemplate handler either. Where is that supposed to be defined? > > > On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 12:44:28 AM UTC-5, Dennis Clark wrote: > >> Ah, I was looking at an older version of core that didn't have an >> onMissingTemplate handler or your new error handling code. I guess this >> means you'll also be updating the code tags/navajo/display.cfm to invoke >> that same handler. I agree that would be a much better overall solution. >> >> -- Dennis >> >> On 8 August 2012 15:23, Blair McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Calling the onMissingTemplate function is better - that way 404 cases >>> are handled in a central place, and if the behaviour is changed (as has >>> happened in core recently), it changes for all cases. I will look into >>> calling application.cfc the same way as farcryConstructor.cfm. >>> >>> Blair >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Dennis Clark <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> The only thing the change in commit 11194 is trying to do is to return >>>> a HTTP 404 response when the file requested for download is missing. The >>>> previous behaviour was to throw a CFML exception. >>>> >>>> The current code tries to re-instatiate the site's Application.cfc in >>>> order to invoke the onMissingTemplate handler. However I believe it would >>>> be better in this case to call the errors/404.cfm template as used by >>>> tags/navajo/display.cfm. This 404.cfm template is already supported, and if >>>> it is missing from the project it falls back to one provided in core. On >>>> the other hand, there's no guarantee that a project defines an >>>> onMissingTemplate handler, or that it provides a useful response to the >>>> end-user. >>>> >>>> We should probably replace the offending lines with this code from >>>> tags/navajo/display.cfm: >>>> >>>> <cfif fileexists("#application.path.** >>>> project#/errors/404.cfm")> >>>> <cfinclude template="/farcry/projects/#**application.** >>>> projectDirectoryName#/errors/**404.cfm" /> >>>> <cfelseif >>>> fileexists("#application.path.**webroot#/errors/404.cfm")> >>>> >>>> <cfinclude >>>> template="#application.url.**webroot#/errors/404.cfm" >>>> /> >>>> <cfelse> >>>> <cfinclude template="/farcry/core/webtop/**errors/404.cfm" >>>> /> >>>> </cfif> >>>> >>>> As to your proposal "to have the original committer (gavin) commit the >>>> necessary modifications to make this code valid", Gavin hasn't been >>>> involved in FarCry for over a year now, so that's not going to happen :-) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dennis Clark | Developer | Daemon Internet Consultants | >>>> http://www.daemon.com.au >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8 August 2012 14:48, Bobby Heath <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> *edit: That was a commit from 7/5/2010. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:40:46 PM UTC-5, Bobby Heath wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> @Chris Thanks for the tip. That did help me get started. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the clues provided I did some deployment testing with the >>>>>> different methods of deployment; both stand alone, and sub directory >>>>>> methods. My client's install is the stand alone sort. As the error >>>>>> correctly states, the component >>>>>> farcry.projects.[myproject].**www.application >>>>>> does not exist in the code base. So everything makes sense to me now. >>>>>> Everything except for the reason why it's not there or why the code in >>>>>> the >>>>>> download tag (farcry/core/tags/farcry/**download.cfm) references >>>>>> code that does not exist. I looked that tag up in the source control and >>>>>> found that this code was added on 7/5/2012 in commit 11194 by user gavin. >>>>>> There were no additional commits that added the application.cfc to the >>>>>> referenced location or the skeleton application used during the initial >>>>>> deploy. I think this is just an oversight caused by development on a >>>>>> code >>>>>> base where modification had already been made and assumptions were made >>>>>> based on that environment. I think that the solution to this issue is to >>>>>> have the original committer (gavin) commit the necessary modifications to >>>>>> make this code valid. If he is unwilling or unavailable to complete that >>>>>> modification, then a rollback on that commit may be in order. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > -- -- You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google group. To post, email: [email protected] To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev -------------------------------- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry
