Ok.... encapsulation is not a rule that you need to adopt, to its fullest. It is a guide.
If I choose to use the application scope to reduce memory, and not duplicate varables that is my choice of design. Encapsulation doesn't take that into consideration, however frameworks that are around do. I am not going to debate the pros and cons of such a guideline. users need to make up their own mind on what best suits them. In such frameworks as Coldbox and MG:U for example I would use that framework to retireve the information. However if the application I design doesn't require that complexity, then I can and will use the application scope inside a cfc. It is legal and legit, and its my choice to minimise memory in that manner if I or any developer so choose it. -- Senior Coldfusion Developer Aegeon Pty. Ltd. www.aegeon.com.au Phone: +613 8676 4223 Mobile: 0404 998 273 On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And it still breaks encapsulation. I facade my remote calls so that > the core object can work like it should, with the remote CFC passing > in at instantiation the relevant things like datasource etc. The CFC > containing the query shouldn't be using the Application scope > directly. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:304386 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
