I have transfer working on 3.1 perfectly. On Jul 7, 7:12 pm, Shawn <[email protected]> wrote: > Bump? > > On Jun 12, 7:33 pm, Mark Mandel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Luis - can you be more specific than that? > > > Mark > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Luis Majano <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry, forgot about this. Well the patch is to add a new attribute to > > > cfarguments called "passby=value" on all cases where recursion is done > > > and arrays are passed. > > > > On Jun 4, 5:51 pm, Jamie Krug <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 :) Mark or Luis: do you happen to have this patch, or maybe point > > > > me in the right direction? > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Jamie > > > > > On May 26, 10:17 am, Shawn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Patch? Oh yes, please! :D > > > > > > Glad to see you guys are working on this. > > > > > > On May 24, 8:25 pm, Mark Mandel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Luis, can you send me a patch with the appropriate place this > > > workaround > > > > > > needs to be placed inside Transfer? > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Kevan Stannard < > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > There was in good discussion on the array pass by value/reference > > > on this a > > > > > > > while back: > > > > > > >http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01670.html > > > > > > > > Sean clarified the Adobe ColdFusion behaviour as: > > > > > > > > Arrays are actually copy-on-assignment. When you pass an array to > > > > > > > a > > > function, it assigns the array to the argument, creating a copy. When you > > > return an > > > > > > > array from a function, it does not copy it - unless you assign the > > > result to a variable. You can see that here: > > > > > > > > <cfscript> > > > > > > > a = [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ]; > > > > > > > > function getA() { return a; } > > > > > > > > b = getA(); // copies a so b is a separate array > > > > > > > b[1] = 42; // does not change a > > > > > > > > arrayAppend(getA(), 5); // no assignment - a *is* modified > > > > > > > </cfscript> > > > > > > > > On Railo's compatibility; I would be surprised if Railo changed > > > this particular behaviour for performance reasons. I imagine this decision > > > was made to implement it how it should have been done in Adobe CF. I read > > > somewhere that BlueDragon also implements array pass-by-reference (not > > > sure). > > > > > > > > Perhaps the problem is not with Railo, perhaps Adobe should > > > implement: > > > > > > > <cfargument name="myArray" type="Array" passby="reference" /> > > > > > > > > I do want all of the CFML engines to implement fundamental > > > > > > > language > > > behaviour in the same way, but I don't see a problem in this particular > > > case. > > > > > > > > Fortunately we have a CFML steering committee now which should > > > hopefully maximise compatibility with CFML engines. > > > > > > > > 2009/5/21 Dan Wilson <[email protected]> > > > > > > > >> You knowm I am of two minds about this. The engineer in me is > > > > > > >> all > > > about a > > > > > > >> more performant engine. I've made some design mistakes I wish I > > > could fix, > > > > > > >> for performance, for extensibility or for the good of the > > > children... > > > > > > >> whatever. Mistakes happen. > > > > > > > >> However, for Railo to change the way CFML works, and then tout > > > themselves > > > > > > >> as faster and better is a little bit rich. Sure you can be > > > faster/better if > > > > > > >> you don't implement everything ColdFusion does. But you aren't > > > fully > > > > > > >> competing then either, are you? > > > > > > > >> Take Chris's example, the xe.formaction='whatever'. Sure this is > > > slower to > > > > > > >> look up. Sure if I was writing an engine for pure speed I'd try > > > > > > >> to > > > not > > > > > > >> support it, heck it affects EVERY variable lookup. However, the > > > standard > > > > > > >> (good, bad or ugly) has been set for years and ColdFusion > > > > > > >> supports > > > it. For > > > > > > >> Railo to not support it means they are out of compliance with > > > ColdFusion and > > > > > > >> I would be very hesitant to use Railo on existing code for that > > > reason. > > > > > > > >> In short, I love the idea of Railo and I love the idea of a > > > > > > >> faster > > > engine. > > > > > > >> I don't love Cherry Picking which parts of ColdFusion to support > > > and which > > > > > > >> to leave off for performance, then selling yourself based on > > > performance. If > > > > > > >> Railo fully implements the ColdFusion spec, without requiring > > > non-standard > > > > > > >> CFML attributes, compiler options and the like, then I'll be > > > impressed. > > > > > > > >> DW > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > E: [email protected] > > > > > > W:www.compoundtheory.com > > > -- > > E: [email protected] > > W:www.compoundtheory.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
