> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 3:12 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: [OT] Future CF Features > > This is a follow up from another post about what happens when someone > removes the ?wsdl from a web service CFC. I'd like to have my first > request be either an admin setting or something else to redirect or choose > where to go when a .cfc is loaded directly in an url without any passed > variables.
This would be very nice indeed. > The second request deals with CFPARAM with the type attribute set. If this > fails, an error is thrown. In order to deal with the error, the CFPARAM > tag has to be within a try/catch. If we know an error may be thrown from > this tag, why not give the tag the ability to deal with the error. > My suggestion is to keep the tag as is but add the ability to put a > closing CFPARAM tag. What will be placed between the start and end CFPARAM > tags is the code that will be run if there is an error. I don't like this idea much... I just don't see the benefit/utility as worth enough to break the standard way of dealing with this - we've got try/catch and works well - why create specialty handling for this one tag? The existing try/catch capability seems very robust and much more versatile. You can catch errors for one, multiple or other tags as well as CFPARAM, you can throw and trap custom errors using custom error objects and so forth. Maybe it's just because I've been doing almost nothing but JavaScript lately but I still find CF's try/catch solution extremely elegant and simple to use. As for future features most of my wishes have been answered. I would like (like many) like to see a more dynamic possibility for extending CFCs (it would be nice to have all capabilities without requiring a mapping). I would also like the features included in "Enterprise" vrs "Standard" to seem a little less arbitrary in some cases. ;^) It's still irksome that CF provides only one method for spawning threads (Event Gateways) and that they're considered "Enterprise Only". Perhaps gateways could be limited somehow (to CF-only gateways or in process gateways or the number of them or something) but to eliminate them from standard entirely just seems a very annoying choice. I've the same opinion about many of the deploy and archiving features. I know they have certain features that cost them money to include and drive up the price for Enterprise. But after that they just seem to cherry pick almost at random to fill out the feature set. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:232315 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
