OK, I've gone with a slightly new version, which does the same thing as display.cfm (as Dennis says, they should both do the same thing). Since it doesn't attempt to instantiate application.cfc, it should work fine in Bobby's case.
Blair On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM, 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 > > > -- -- 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
