> At 02:37 AM 11/2/2001, Birgit wrote:
>
>>Pete,
>>you are right concerning <cfscript> but I can't see the limitations
>>regarding UDFs.
>>
>>A UDF pre se is meant to be self-contained and therefore not relying on
>>anything outside it's
>>own scope. Wouldn't the use of shared data inside a UDF be defeating this
>>purpose?
>>
>>You could read a shared scope variable into a local variable and get
>>that into the UDF do what ever you do and than return a new value,
>>write that value into your shared data.
>>
>>Birgit
James Sleeman wrote:
> I don't think so... take for example the following
>
> if locking could be done in <CFSCRIPT/>
>
> <CFIF serviceAvailable('borkyService')>
> do stuff, we don't care about how serviceAvailable() does it's
> job, just that we ask for a service and it
> tells us if it is available
>
> internally, serviceAvailable must perform a named lock around say
> some code accessing a global structure that
> holds the services that are currently configured in the website,
> say, APPLICATION.Services
>
> but this calling section of code doesn't care aboutt that we don't
> want to know how the job is done, only that it is
> </CFIF>
If serviceAvailable() requires the use of the external variable
application.services I would say that it is a Bad Thing (TM) if you can
invoke it like serviceAvailable('borkyService'). The UDF should be
modified so it has to be invoked by sending all external variables,
serviceAvailable('borkyService',application.services)
<cf_snip>
> in conclusion I think that not having locks in CFSCRIPT is causing the
> break of scope.
I think bad UDF implementation is causing break of scope in your example
for the reasons stated above, and I completely agree with Birgit.
Jochem
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
