Good point. I did say I realized that ini files weren’t as “robust or flexible”. :-) But WDDX files are definitely a step above that before making up one’s own XML. They all have their place, so good to be reminded every once in a while.
And thanks for the concurrence on INI files, Wes. :-) /charlie From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of shawn gorrell Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:29 PM To: discussion@acfug.org Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] Development vs Production Application.cfm and other things... Let me throw yet another wrinkle into the discussion. WDDX. There are times when I want to have configurations that are represented as complex objects, that an INI file cannot do (or at least without pain), and XML parsing is horrid at (syntactically). With WDDX I can make a read of the file and a single CFWDDX call and I've got native CF datasets to work with like structures, arrays and queries, without the pain of XML parsing. I've always thought that WDDX is one of the most under-appreciated parts of CF. ------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @ http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/ List hosted by http://www.fusionlink.com -------------------------------------------------------------
