? And the only way (other
than doing a massive find/replace) to shift the entire app to another DB
easily is by modifying the userDAO_MSSQL.cfc so that it no longer is MSSQL?
Kerry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Joe Rinehart
Sent: 18 November 2004 02
how about blocking all autoreplies?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Dawson, Michael
Sent: 18 November 2004 14:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Autoreply: [PERIODIC cfcdev DIGEST POSTING]
Ummm. Ray, is it time to block this
instance.common.string.split()
If you are using inheritance, (fatal logic error: why would a vehicle have
a split() function?) then I presume you would just call split(), so if a
future CF version has a split() function, you are in trouble
Kerry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
heres what i use:
cfset errmsg=""cfset docommit =
truecftransaction
action=""cftry
!--- do your queries/cfc
calls here ---
cfcatchcfset
docommit = falsecfset errmsg =
"#cfcatch.message#,#cfcatch.detail#"/cfcatch/cftrycfif
docommitcftransaction
action=""/cfelsecftransaction
Personally, I would return an empty array, with one empty element, the
rationale being:
if you passed it: 12345qwerty
you would get back exactly what you passed in, but as the first element in
an array.
so if you passed it: [empty string]
shouldnt the behaviour be the same? (not that cold
When we
pass data into a function, we pass in each individual field instead of an
object. This has the benefit of allowing most of our functions to be
exposed directly as webservices with no modification whatsoever, and
without
worrying about compatibility with our target platforms due to strange
To: cfcdev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Composition and SQL
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:33:52 -, Kerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why make the rest of us programmers figure out your proprietary
objArgs technique?
in this particular case, my boss would be very happy if i made the app
I could see the genericDAO scheme working if there was an argument on
the create method that required an object that implemented a
fictitious interface dictating that that it only took objects with a
getConfig() method.
okay im not really getting it.
the 2 scenarios are:
1. function has
why use them at all? in fact why use the recordset cursor at all?
from(i=1; i lte myquery.recordcount;i=i+1){
writeoutput(myquery[myfield][i]br);
}
this way a single query in memory can be used by lots of different code...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the hidden features are actually java? so it doesnt matter if CF changes,
only if the java implementation changes?
raising the possibility that the undocumented features could be more stable
than the documented ones? :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
maybe try without any
apostrophes
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 23 February 2005 15:49To:
cfcdev@cfczone.orgSubject: [CFCDev] 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
'unsubscribe cfcdev'
shouldnt this:
cf_data_list query=myQuery
cf_column
headerText=Namecfoutput#myQuery.name#/cfoutput/cf_column
cf_column
headerText=Datecfoutput#myQuery.date#/cfoutput/cf_column
/cf_data_list
be this:
cf_data_list query=myQuery
cf_column
headerText=Name
DataRowCollection.GetEnumerator()
ah, .NET, the exceedingly long names for classes, most of which are buried
deep within other classes with exceedingly long names...
i should remember these things when i get annoyed with CF
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
I think there was a bug that meant cfcs had access the the .cfms variables
scope, but it was fixed in 6.1? or maybe in the updater
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Dave Merrill
Sent: 04 April 2005 15:07
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE:
you really don't want to create a deep tree
Just wondering how deep the tree would have to be before you would class it
as too deep?
create a maintenance nightmare
I dont follow, how does it create a maintenance nightmare?
e.g. if I fix a bug/improve something in my generic persistence.cfc, then
Its extremely hard to determine which method call threw the
error, unless your framework bubble up errors well
Just a thought, cfcatch does a good job of providing a 'breadcrumb'...
you could have a generic throw function?
cffunction name=tracethrow
cfargument name=message
Looks interesting, seems well thought out and tight.
One thing, could you make it work sans the CF /arcos mapping?
I prefer to have all my applications running independently.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Tan Panza Serge
Sent: 21 April 2005
well, the way I do it (which I think is also generally frowned upon) is that
I have a generic DAO cfc which expects an object that has a method which
returns the fields of that object, and a structure of parameters.
It loops over the fields returned and any that it also finds in the
structure of
Where does the info about the object's fields come from? Is it returned by
a
method of each persistable object?
Yep. The method returns the fields array, which can be populated by
hardcoding the properties in the cfc, which I have done for the static, core
elements of the framework, or can come
Just
to chip in my thoughts at this late stage of the thread
I am
using akind of generic bean method:
Each
of my objects holds an array of field
definitions, and to get a bean, you ask the object for a
bean.
the
getBean() function only accepts one argument, a struct. The object then
I have
something like this, but I avoid server wide components for various reasons (I
like my sites to be modular, independent,portable), although many people
would disagree with this approach.
So, I
have a component called common, which performs a cfdirectory on a subdirectory
called
Does it make sense to create a Component that holds all the
functions
Personally, I would break them up
into sub components.
i.e.
common.string
common.math
common.date
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ali AwanSent:
11 May
Any comments appreciated.
Why does the factory manager go back out of itself to application scope,
when it itself is already a singleton in application scope?
You could change to:
!--- Instantiate ComponentManager ---
cfif not StructKeyExists(Application, 'ComponentFactoryManager')
but, if you are creating the object in app scope, and x number of requests
cause the appstart code to run, then each subsequent request will overwrite
the last one, so there will still only be one instance of the object?
in saying that, I would do the lock because its nice and tidy.
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Nando
Sent: 13 May 2005 10:53
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: SPAM-LOW: RE: [CFCDev] Singleton / Factory request
Kerry, i don't think there's much of any reason to create an object and
place it in application scope unless you make
that a marketing spiel or what?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Byron
Sent: 13 May 2005 16:00
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: [CFCDev] very cool tool www.cfcpowertools.com
Hi,
Ya, I lurk on this list too; there are lots of us who do. I've
CFML doesn't have pre- and post-increment operators, either. Should it
YES! That would be great, no more typing fugly i=i+1, just i++. beautiful.
that would be beautiful.
How about pointers?
it does?, references to objects and structs are pointers? what would be
wrong with being able to set a
cflib.org has functions for this
? had a look, couldnt find one named ++ that didnt require brackets and
could be called from either side of the variable
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of RADEMAKERS Tanguy
Sent: 26 May 2005 15:49
To:
or not:
The IIf function is a shortcut for the following construct:
cfif condition
cfset result = Evaluate(string_expression1)
cfelse
cfset result = Evaluate(string_expression2)
/cfif
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Joe Rinehart
All expressions a, b and c are evaluated... ...in an iif() statement
even worse!
silly me, cutting and pasting from the macromedia reference like that.
http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/6.1/htmldocs/funct117.htm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
you might want to lookup thread(s):
[CFCDev] Generic Beans (was: LTOs (was: Form Validation))
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Dave Merrill
Sent: 01 June 2005 16:10
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: [CFCDev] Transfer object implementation
In
I
think it might just be that its an html email containing JS.
Is
there an option on the list to receive all emails as plain
text?
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ung, SengSent:
15 June 2005 21:34To: CFCDev@cfczone.orgSubject:
But
shouldnt it really be:
application.cfcPlayerHandler.getById(variables.item.getPlayerUuid(y)).getName()
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of John
SamsonSent: 29 June 2005 17:55To:
cfcdev@cfczone.orgSubject: [CFCDev] Redundant
perhaps:
cfvinvoke component="variables.item"
method="getPlayer#y#Uuid"
returnvariable="theuuid"
application.cfcPlayerHandler.getById(theuuid).getName()
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of John
SamsonSent: 29 June 2005 17:55To:
http://www.cflib.org/udf.cfm?ID=1219
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Magnus Wege
Sent: 05 July 2005 09:20
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: [CFCDev] CFC Functions Escaping ' using methods
Hello,
I have a question concerning the escaping of
The way I (possibly incorrectly) use the term gateway in cfcs is really only
for providing access to external applications, e.g. Flash/Flex apps, other
websites.
I also code the Flash/Flex app to have its own gateway component, which then
talks to my gateway cfc, so the apps only talk to
I'll
second what dave said about developing locally, but you could achieve this
easily by having 2 websites running on the
server?
www.yoursite.com
points
to
c:\inetpub\wwwroot\yoursite\
dev.yoursite.com
points
to
c:\inetpub\wwwroot\devsite\
Then
they both have seperate copies of
So you'd deprecate that method, and then add getGasLeftGallons() and
getGasLeftLitres() or something
I know its only an example off the top of your head, but this does change
the interface! So I can see why John would question the benefit.
Heres my take on the example - off the top of my head
My Answer:
gatewayFactory.cfc
function init(dsn,someargs){
variables.instance.dsn = arguments.dsn;
variables.instance.something = arguments.somethingelse;
}
function load(gatewayname){
return
createobject(component,arguments.gatewayname).init(variables.instance.dsn)
;
}
through
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Nando
Sent: 09 September 2005 09:30
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Method parameters vs method names WAS: When to use
the THIS scope for a ColdFusion Component?
Kerry,
Hmmm, an all
not sure why barney has used my, but I will quite often break up the
variables into diff structs, just because it seems tidy to me. e.g.
variables.cfg
variables.obj
variables.qry
so i might even have:
variables.cfg.db.dsn
variables.cfg.db.dbtype
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
: [CFCDev] Method parameters vs method names WAS: When to use
the THIS scope for a ColdFusion Component?
Kerry:
I credit this approach by abstracting the dsn setting to a gateway cfc. My
goal is to make the interface as simple and as possible for the caller to
retrieve records following the idea
parameters vs method names WAS: When to use
the THIS scope for a ColdFusion Component?
Kerry:
I credit this approach by abstracting the dsn setting to a gateway cfc. My
goal is to make the interface as simple and as possible for the caller to
retrieve records following the idea that other programmers
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Jason Davey
Sent: 09 September 2005 16:52
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Method parameters vs method names WAS: When to use
the THIS scope for a ColdFusion Component?
Kerry:
I see your approach more clearly. I like the singleton instance idea via
Nando:
So to have more than one instance of an app on a server
puts you through some gymnastics. Either you have to search and replace the
mapping name in your CFC's
Or not rely on any mappings!
Going down the directory tree works, it's just going up where you run into
problems.
True, but I
I would _try_ to have a uniform approach so that a P object is always a P
object, not P.1 and P.2
As long as the logic is has a property that might not be used instead of
might have a property that will be used,
then I would say you dont have a problem.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
:32 PM
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Default for Dates in a Transfer object
Kerry,
You would define you're own rule for what a NULL is for that type
since you're creating the component.
If a zero-length string is a null to you thens ure isNull
would return
true. if the rule
at
first glance, it would seem to me that they are all content providers, so rather
than inherit from page, I would make everything inherit from
contentprovider.cfc
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of PaulSent: 13
October 2005
This isnt a perfect OO implementation because it is completely untyped, but
I have essentially generic beans that only have 3 functions:
init
- accepts a list of field names, and uses them to create a struct in the
variables scope
setValues
- accepts a struct or query, and looks for the fields
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Peter J. Farrell
Sent: 14 October 2005 09:30
To: CFCDev@cfczone.org
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Inside the CFC: use Getter/Setter or Instance
Scope
Kerry wrote:
This isnt a perfect OO implementation because it is completely untyped, but
I have
cfset
Application.userFactory = CreateObject(component,com.framework.user)
/
cfset
Application.userFactory().AddUser(UserObject) /
cfset
Application.userFactory().DeleteUSer(UserObject) /
bit confused by this code.
1) userFactory is not a
function.
2) why is the factory performing
Kerry,
First of all I type
this in a bit of a hurry, so yeah it userFactory is not a function. Secondly
as I described the object is a user object that will be held in memory so the
scope form has nothing to do with this scenario so why give that to me as an
example?
cfset
why is variables.oUser adding and deleting users
well, right or wrong, I dont see why anything that interfaces with the
object even needs to know about the concept of a DAO.
So, all the code that is referencing oUser needs to know is to ask the
factory for an object, and then call the functions
It's very relevant to the outside world
I respectfully disagree. You think the interface layer should know about
persistence?
if you handed me a user object, ... I would not expect it to be able to
create, delete, or persist *other* user objects
Your UserService would have
methods like
54 matches
Mail list logo
