Thanks Eric.
Eric Knipp wrote:
> I'm not sure of the state of your application and realize that this may
not be the best time for you to do major refactoring, but I would
encourage you to evaluate Mach-II as a possible helper in getting to a
clear separation of concerns. A lot of what you're going to be building
yourself has been done before in Mach-II (and for that matter,
Model-Glue, Coldbox, etc).
yeah, and the folks who wrote that stuff knew what the hell they were doing...
as opposed to me. It's really been an up hill battle. My friend is very
procedural, and to be honest, I am too. But I'm *trying* to learn, and utilize
OO principals, but I don't see him trying... well, not very hard anyway.
I'd like to look at a framework like those you've mentioned, but wouldn't know
where to begin. I know the group has focused on one or two frameworks before,
but stopped just about the time I started coming to meetings. Maybe sometime the
subject will come around again, and I can pick it up then.
If I wasn't taking care of two client's I'd have more time to spend educating
myself on a framework or two. Also, I think it would take a minor miracle to get
anyone, but me excited about refactoring this project. :o(
Thanks again,
Chris
Eric
On 4/16/07, *Tom Woestman* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
One other option - as far as I know other than memory usage there is no
significant negative to maintaining global vars in more than one scope
so you could put the variable in both variables and request scope to
keep your friend happy and maintain easy usability in CFCs.
Hope this helps :)
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of Christopher
Jordan
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:44 PM
To: Dallas/Fort Worth ColdFusion User Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: [DFW CFUG] CFCs: Passed in variables not inherited?
Hi Tom,
Yeah, that's basically what we're doing except we didn't start off
keeping the
variables in the application or request scopes. :o( That probably would
have
been the way to go. However knowing my friend, he'd complain that he had
to put
'application.' in front of all these variables. He likes that he can
just refer
to them by name. *sigh*
Thanks again, Tom! :o)
Chris
Tom Woestman wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> We put variables 'global' variables in either the request or
application
> scope so they are available to all CF code scopes be it a single CF
> template or a CFC. We also put all variable declarations of this
type
> in a single file that is included by the application.cfm or a central
> controller file for our application. This tends to keep the
> application.cfm much cleaner.
>
> We also have different settings for these variables based on the tier
> the application is running on. For example, in our dev tier we will
> output error emails to just the developers working on the
application,
> but in production error emails also go to our systems support team.
>
> I hope you find these useful,
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of
Christopher
> Jordan
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 11:09 AM
> To: Dallas/Fort Worth ColdFusion User Group Mailing List
> Subject: [DFW CFUG] CFCs: Passed in variables not inherited?
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I've got a CFC that I call 'Base'. It contains some general
functions
> that might
> be useful no matter what other CFC I might be in, and so most (if not
> all) of my
> CFCs extend Base.
>
> I work with another programmer on this particular project who
likes to
> put just
> about *EVERYTHING* into Application.cfm (we're using CFMX6.1).
>
> For example:
>
> <!--- Default date/time masks --->
> <CFSet SQLDateMask = "yyyy/mm/dd">
>
> <CFSet DateMask1 = "mm/dd/yyyy">
> <CFSet DateMask2 = "d mmm, yyyy">
> <CFSet DateMask3 = "mmm d, yyyy">
> <CFSet DateMask4 = "dddd mmm d, yyyy">
> <CFSet DateMask5 = "dddd mmmm d, yyyy">
>
> <CFSet TimeMask1 = "h:mm:ss tt">
> <CFSet TimeMask2 = "HH:mm:ss">
> <CFSet TimeMask3 = "h:mm tt">
> <CFSet TimeMask4 = "hh:mm:ss tt">
>
> <!--- Set the common date variables. --->
> <CFSet Today = Now()>
> <CFSet Yesterday = DateAdd("d",-1,Today)>
> <CFSet Tomorrow = DateAdd("d",1,Today)>
> <CFSet FirstDayThisWeek = Today - DayOfWeek(Today) + 1>
>
> ... etc., etc.
>
> That's all well and good. So, I've spent the last year or so
trying to
> coax him
> into using CFCs. His first complaint was that he didn't have
access to
> all of
> the nice variables that he's so used to having. (*sigh*)
>
> So for the better part of a year or so our solution was to have code
> like this
> in the constructor area of our Base cfc:
>
> <CFParam Name="Session.Username" Default=""><!--- Ensure that the
> Username
> exists. --->
> <CFParam Name="Variables.ThisUsername"
> Default="#Session.Username#"><!--- Ensure
> that the Username exists. --->
>
> <CFIf
>
FileExists(ExpandPath("/Include/#Application.ApplicationName#SystemVaria
> bles.cfm"))>
> <CFInclude
> Template="/Include/#Application.ApplicationName#SystemVariables.cfm">
> <CFElseIf Not
>
ListFindNoCase("EmployeeNomination,SCInvoiceAdministration,RecruitReport
> ",
> Application.ApplicationName)>
> <CFSet TemplateRootPath = "">
> <CFSet ThisPath = Trim(CGI.Path_Info)>
> <CFLoop index="i" from="1" to="#ListLen(Trim(
CGI.Path_Info),"/") -
> 1#">
> <CFSet ThisPathPart = ListFirst(ThisPath,"/")>
> <CFSet TemplateRootPath =
> ListAppend(TemplateRootPath,ThisPathPart,"/")>
> <CFSet ThisPath = ListRest(ThisPath,"/")>
> </CFLoop>
> <CFSet TemplateRootPath = "/" & TemplateRootPath>
> <CFIf FileExists(ExpandPath(TemplateRootPath &
"/Application.cfm"))>
> <CFInclude Template="#TemplateRootPath#/Application.cfm">
> </CFIf>
> </CFIf>
>
> ... All of this just to ensure that all of the nice variables that
we've
> created
> on the .cfm side of things will be available to all of our CFCs
(or at
> least to
> all of those that extend Base).
>
> Okay, well, I'm not entirely keen on this way of doing things. I
don't
> know, it
> seems kludgey to me. So, I got the idea (maybe even from someone on
this
> list, I
> can't remember) that instead of including the stuff like that we
should
> just
> pass the contents of the variables scope into base when it's
> instantiated:
>
> <CFIf NOT StructKeyExists(Session, "Base")>
> <CFSet Session.Base = CreateObject("component",
> "Include.CFC.Base").init(variables="#variables#")>
> </CFIf>
>
> ... inside Base, the init function would look like this:
>
> <cffunction name="init" returntype="any">
> <cfscript>
> // put the passed in variables into the local variables
scope.
> var myKey = "";
> if(StructKeyExists(arguments, "variables")){
> for(myKey in arguments.variables){
> "variables.#myKey#" = arguments.variables[myKey];
> }
> }
> return this;
> </cfscript>
> </cffunction>
>
> I tried this in another of my CFCs (which did not extend Base) and it
> was
> successful... until I needed a function that was in base... then it
> seemed
> pointless, because I just ended up extending Base anyway.
>
> The problem now (sorry for such a long post), is that when passing in
> the
> contents of the variables scope like this, it works great for that
CFC,
> but
> other CFCs that extend it don't inherit those variables.
>
> ... and I just had a moment of clarity... just as I was writing
that...
> it's
> because when I instantiate Base and put it in the Session scope
that's
> one
> instance. But when I instantiate some other component which extends
> Base, it
> gets it's own instance of Base (so to speak)... one that has not had
the
> variables passed into it.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Okay, so this post took a bit of a turn (sorry), but now I'm
wondering,
> is there
> a better way to accomplish what we're doing? Should we really be
doing
> this in
> the first place?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
--
http://www.cjordan.us
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
<http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/>
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.instantspot.com/ <http://www.instantspot.com/>
www.teksystems.com/ <http://www.teksystems.com/>
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
<http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list>
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
<http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/>
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.instantspot.com/ <http://www.instantspot.com/>
www.teksystems.com/ <http://www.teksystems.com/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.instantspot.com/
www.teksystems.com/
--
http://www.cjordan.us
_______________________________________________
Reply to DFWCFUG:
[email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists1.safesecureweb.com/mailman/listinfo/list
List Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40list.dfwcfug.org/
http://www.mail-archive.com/list%40dfwcfug.org/
DFWCFUG Sponsors:
www.instantspot.com/
www.teksystems.com/
