Here she is:
<!--- THE CFC --->
<cfcomponent output="false">
<cffunction name="dynamicArgs" access="public">
<cfset var func = variables['test'] />
<cfset var ExecuteMe="" />
<cfset var currentIndex="" />
<cfloop from="1" to="#ArrayLen(arguments)#" index="currentIndex">
<cfset ExecuteMe=ListAppend(ExecuteMe,
'''#arguments[currentIndex]#''') />
</cfloop>
<cfset ExecuteMe="func(#ExecuteMe#)" />
<cfreturn evaluate(ExecuteMe) />
</cffunction>
<cffunction name="test" access="public">
<cfargument name="test" type="string" required="Yes" />
<cfreturn arguments />
</cffunction>
</cfcomponent>
<!--- INDEX FILE --->
<cfset TestObj=createobject('component', 'test') />
<cfdump
var="#TestObj.dynamicArgs('DynArg1','DynArg2','DynArg3','DynArg4','DynArg5')#">
I expect the next dot release of transfer to be dedicated to me! HAHAHA!
Just kidding.
Baz
On 10/23/07, Mark Mandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Nah, I wouldn't 'cause I'm mean like that ;o)
>
> If it worked, I would be interested, as I'm sure many other people would.
>
> Let's see whatcha got ;)
>
> Mark
>
> On 10/24/07, Baz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey Mark, what if I told you I figured out a way to do it? Would you
> blog
> > about it?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/23/07, Mark Mandel < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > No, I said it won't let you do it *dynamically*, so you can't go:
> > >
> > > -- added to A.cfc ---
> > > <cffunction name="dynamicArgs" hint="" access="public"
> > > returntype="void" output="false">
> > > <cfscript>
> > > var func = variables["test"];
> > >
> > > func(argumentCollection=arguments);
> > > </cfscript>
> > > </cffunction>
> > >
> > > and then try and call dynamicArgs like:
> > >
> > > <cfscript>
> > > a.dynamicArg("dynamic arguments");
> > > </cfscript>
> > >
> > > It bombs out, as the argument collection is looking for a struct with
> > > named keys, not 1, 2, 3 etc.
> > >
> > > Make more sense now?
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On 10/24/07, Baz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Mark, what do you mean "it won't allow you pass in unnamed
> arguments"?
> > You
> > > > did: func("dynamic");
> > > >
> > > > Baz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/23/07, Mark Mandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking into this some more, this won't allow you to pass in
> unamed
> > > > > arguments dynamically, such as from oMM... so maybe it's not as
> useful
> > > > > as I had originally thought.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/23/07, Mark Mandel < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > Okay... amazing what comes out when you actually test something
> out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know *how* this works, but apparently it does.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wrote a quick CFC called 'A' It looks like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cfcomponent output="false">
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cffunction name="init" hint="Constructor" access="public"
> > > > > > returntype="A" output="false">
> > > > > > <cfscript>
> > > > > > instance = StructNew();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > instance.test = "test";
> > > > > >
> > > > > > return this;
> > > > > > </cfscript>
> > > > > > </cffunction>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cffunction name="dynamic" hint="" access="public"
> returntype="void"
> > > > > > output="false">
> > > > > > <cfscript>
> > > > > > var func = variables["test"];
> > > > > > var ret = 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > func("dynamic");
> > > > > > </cfscript>
> > > > > > </cffunction>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cffunction name="getInstance" hint="" access="public"
> > > > > > returntype="struct" output="false">
> > > > > > <cfreturn instance />
> > > > > > </cffunction>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cffunction name="test" hint="" access="public"
> returntype="void"
> > > > > > output="false">
> > > > > > <cfargument name="test" hint="" type="string"
> > required="Yes">
> > > > > > <cfscript>
> > > > > > instance.test = arguments.test;
> > > > > > </cfscript>
> > > > > > </cffunction>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > </cfcomponent>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First things first:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cfscript>
> > > > > > a = createObject("component", "A").init();
> > > > > > </cfscript>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cfdump var="#a.getInstance()#">
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dumps out:
> > > > > > TEST test
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Next...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cfscript>
> > > > > > a.test("thing");
> > > > > > </cfscript>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cfdump var="#a.getInstance()#">
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dumps out:
> > > > > > TEST thing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Next.. and the weird one:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cfscript>
> > > > > > a.dynamic();
> > > > > > </cfscript>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <cfdump var="#a.getInstance()#">
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dumps out:
> > > > > > TEST dynamic
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What the? This is very cool, but I don't get it! The setting of
> the
> > > > > > function to a local var scope variable still allows it access to
> the
> > > > > > parent CFC's instance scope... and lets it change it as it needs
> to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This will be very handy for things like onMM, but I'm totally
> > shocked
> > > > > > it actually works...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So guess this was actually the way to go.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bizarre!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/23/07, Baz <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > > > Hey Brian, you are right that the problem could be solved
> using a
> > > > convention
> > > > > > > of always using the method name as the argument name, or even
> > deciding
> > > > on a
> > > > > > > single generic argument name like "Value". But imagine if you
> were
> > > > building
> > > > > > > a shared object that will be used by other members of your
> team,
> > in my
> > > > case
> > > > > > > a generic data object that can either pull from the
> > variables.instance
> > > > > > > scope, or, if so defined, can use a custom function to set the
> > value.
> > > > Well
> > > > > > > you could teach everyone a convention/methodology to achieve
> this,
> > but
> > > > why
> > > > > > > not make it as intuitive as possible and just send a single
> > un-named
> > > > > > > argument, as any setter method expects. That way your coders
> don't
> > > > have to
> > > > > > > remember random syntax and can focus on the core of the
> problem.
> > It
> > > > just
> > > > > > > makes the user experience better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On an un-related side-note, I think this is the first time
> I've
> > > > noticed TAG
> > > > > > > syntax not being able to accomplish something that SCRIPT
> syntax
> > can -
> > > > > > > usually its the other way around.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Baz
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/22/07, Brian Kotek < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Interesting, I hadn't really run into a situation like that
> > before!
> > > > Most
> > > > > > > of my dynamic method calls tend to be autopopulating beans, or
> > calling
> > > > a
> > > > > > > method and passing an argumentCollection. Hadn't gotten into
> > chains of
> > > > > > > dynamic method calls (but maybe I will now heh).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/22/07, Sean Corfield < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/22/07, Brian Kotek < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I'm still a bit fuzzy though on why you would be calling
> a
> > > > method
> > > > > > > whose
> > > > > > > > > > arguments you would "never know" the names of.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I run into that a lot - in dynamic programming you know
> > nothing
> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > the methods you are calling beyond the name and
> approximate
> > > > calling
> > > > > > > > > sequence. I use getMetadata() on the function to find its
> > > > arguments.
> > > > > > > > > See:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> http://org-corfield-cfmx.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/wwwroot/org/corfield/component.cfc
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The call() method handles arbitrary dynamic calls.
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
> > > > > > > > > An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really
> alive."
> > > > > > > > > -- Margaret Atwood
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > W: www.compoundtheory.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > W: www.compoundtheory.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > W: www.compoundtheory.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> W: www.compoundtheory.com
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"CFCDev" 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/cfcdev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
