Hi Alan this is not quite that easy. There are several things to respect so let me give you an example:
cffunction-access You can find the following in the Adobe Coldfusion 8 livedoc about the function attribute access: package: available only to the component that declares the method, components that extend the component, or any other components in the package. In Adobe Coldfusion you can also access functions with the access package from cfm templates that are in the same package (folder), and not only by components as the Adobe documentation states, whereas in Railo you can't. In this case Adobe Coldfusion brakes the rules of the Adobe Coldfusion documentation and Railo does not, so what is the correct behaviour in this case? greetings mic Alan Williamson schrieb: > For example, Brett run this test and discovered that Railo passed the > most and ColdFusion failed the most. That is how he presented it. Me, > i read that as saying Railo failed the most, as we all unofficially > accept ColdFusion is the standard. > > So out of 140 tests, Railo differed (40 differences) from the "standard" > the most, where as OpenBD only differed in 15. > > We have to be very careful how we interpret and setup such tests. > > While this is interesting ... but let me pose something here to get the > discussions flowing. > > Do we really need a tight standard? > > In whose interests is it to adhere to? Yes we could build the most > "standardised" engine out there, but it's of no use if the others don't > implement the same. So is it really a standard then? > > The vast majority of people in my experience, rarely move engines once > development has started, and the only people that really seem to care > are the ones building the standard frameworks. Of course they want > life to be easier so they can only create one version. > > Yes all the engines strive to match each other as close as possible, but > to the CFML developer on the frontline, has it really lost you any money > at the moment __NOT__ having a true tag-4-tag function-4-function > compatibility? > > > > > On 29/04/2009 01:32, WebFlint wrote: > >> I'd also like to say I'm really excited about CFML advisory committee >> and hope to see a convergence between the three on a standard. >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Open BlueDragon Public Mailing List http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en official site @ http://www.openbluedragon.org/ !! save a network - trim replies before posting !! -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
