I think I have an older version as well then.  I don't have the 
onMissingTemplate handler either.  Where is that supposed to be defined?

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 12:44:28 AM UTC-5, Dennis Clark wrote:
>
> Ah, I was looking at an older version of core that didn't have an 
> onMissingTemplate handler or your new error handling code. I guess this 
> means you'll also be updating the code tags/navajo/display.cfm to invoke 
> that same handler. I agree that would be a much better overall solution.
>
> -- Dennis
>
> On 8 August 2012 15:23, Blair McKenzie <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote:
>
>> Calling the onMissingTemplate function is better - that way 404 cases are 
>> handled in a central place, and if the behaviour is changed (as has 
>> happened in core recently), it changes for all cases. I will look into 
>> calling application.cfc the same way as farcryConstructor.cfm.
>>
>> Blair
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Dennis Clark 
>> <[email protected]<javascript:>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing the change in commit 11194 is trying to do is to return a 
>>> HTTP 404 response when the file requested for download is missing. The 
>>> previous behaviour was to throw a CFML exception.
>>>
>>> The current code tries to re-instatiate the site's Application.cfc in 
>>> order to invoke the onMissingTemplate handler. However I believe it would 
>>> be better in this case to call the errors/404.cfm template as used by 
>>> tags/navajo/display.cfm. This 404.cfm template is already supported, and if 
>>> it is missing from the project it falls back to one provided in core. On 
>>> the other hand, there's no guarantee that a project defines an 
>>> onMissingTemplate handler, or that it provides a useful response to the 
>>> end-user.
>>>
>>> We should probably replace the offending lines with this code from 
>>> tags/navajo/display.cfm:
>>>
>>>             <cfif 
>>> fileexists("#application.path.project#/errors/404.cfm")>
>>>                 <cfinclude 
>>> template="/farcry/projects/#application.projectDirectoryName#/errors/404.cfm"
>>>  
>>> />
>>>             <cfelseif 
>>> fileexists("#application.path.webroot#/errors/404.cfm")>                
>>>                 <cfinclude 
>>> template="#application.url.webroot#/errors/404.cfm" />
>>>             <cfelse>
>>>                 <cfinclude template="/farcry/core/webtop/errors/404.cfm" 
>>> />
>>>             </cfif>
>>>
>>> As to your proposal "to have the original committer (gavin) commit the 
>>> necessary modifications to make this code valid", Gavin hasn't been 
>>> involved in FarCry for over a year now, so that's not going to happen :-)
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dennis Clark | Developer | Daemon Internet Consultants | 
>>> http://www.daemon.com.au
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 August 2012 14:48, Bobby Heath <[email protected] <javascript:>
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> *edit: That was a commit from 7/5/2010. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:40:46 PM UTC-5, Bobby Heath wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> @Chris Thanks for the tip.  That did help me get started.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the clues provided I did some deployment testing with the 
>>>>> different methods of deployment; both stand alone, and sub directory 
>>>>> methods.  My client's install is the stand alone sort.  As the error 
>>>>> correctly states, the component 
>>>>> farcry.projects.[myproject].www.application 
>>>>> does not exist in the code base.  So everything makes sense to me now. 
>>>>> Everything except for the reason why it's not there or why the code in 
>>>>> the 
>>>>> download tag (farcry/core/tags/farcry/download.cfm) references code that 
>>>>> does not exist.  I looked that tag up in the source control and found 
>>>>> that 
>>>>> this code was added on 7/5/2012 in commit 11194 by user gavin.  There 
>>>>> were 
>>>>> no additional commits that added the application.cfc to the referenced 
>>>>> location or the skeleton application used during the initial deploy.  I 
>>>>> think this is just an oversight caused by development on a code base 
>>>>> where 
>>>>> modification had already been made and assumptions were made based on 
>>>>> that 
>>>>> environment.  I think that the solution to this issue is to have the 
>>>>> original committer (gavin) commit the necessary modifications to make 
>>>>> this 
>>>>> code valid.  If he is unwilling or unavailable to complete that 
>>>>> modification, then a rollback on that commit may be in order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  

-- 
-- 
You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google group.
To post, email: [email protected]
To unsubscribe, email: [email protected]
For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev
--------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry


Reply via email to