On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:21:23 -0500, "Peter J. Farrell" <[email protected]> wrote: > However, I suggest that Open BD should maybe > think twice about adding 50+ image functions to the root namespace -- > therefore polluting the function namespace. I suggest using the Image > construct like image.resize(200, 200) instead of the Adobe CF way of > imageResize(image, 200, 200). I guess it depends on how compatible you > want to be.
Completely agree. While I hate to encourage compatibility differences, and we'll want to hear from OpenBD users on this point, in this particular case doing it the "right" way (at least from my perspective) is probably the smart thing to do. Also so everyone's aware, the CFML Advisory Committee has voted that CFIMAGE is not "core" to the language and therefore vendor implementations can and will differ. But again, if people think compatibility on CFIMAGE specifically is of vital importance, please let us know. We'll have to balance compatibility issues against what we see as doing the right thing and what functionality we may be able to offer based on the library we use that will dictate compatibility can't be 100%. -- Matthew Woodward [email protected] http://mpwoodward.posterous.com identi.ca/Twitter: @mpwoodward Please do not send me proprietary file formats such as Word, PowerPoint, etc. as attachments. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 !! -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
