On Nov 29, 2:26 pm, "Peter J. Farrell" <[email protected]> wrote: > Josh Hayes-Sheen said the following on 11/27/2010 04:39 AM:> It looks like > it's an issue with the difference between which > > variables are passed into the thread scope, OpenBD doesn't pass the > > variables scope from a parent cfc by default, but DOES pass a "this" > > scope which can be used instead (http://wiki.openbluedragon.org/wiki/ > > index.php/CFTHREAD#Notes, Second and third paragraph) > > The simplest fix is to have both OpenBD and ACF use this.*
I'll update my patch accordingly then, I don't have ACF anywhere so I couldn't test if "this" was available on that platform or not and didn't want to assume > However, all the engines handle exception handling slightly > differently. It's not that the exception structs or status codes differ > it's that different exception at the engine level slightly differ. I > recall in one situation where an exception on ACF threw an "application" > exception type whereas OpenBD and Railo threw "expression". That stuff > can't be matched up entirely. > This is something else that's burned me already, There are several places where Coldbox expects exception structs to contain backtraces, and on attempting to access them it just causes another exception to be thrown (And makes it harded to track down the actual problem) > Anyways, this is in Mach-II we built a threading adapter system so we > could use threading on all CFML engines and make them work the same in > all situations we know of. > The use of threading in coldbox is very minimal as far as I've seen, so hopefully it won't come to this, but maybe I'll look at Mach-II for inspiration when I encounter any other issues in Coldbox -- Open BlueDragon Public Mailing List http://www.openbluedragon.org/ http://twitter.com/OpenBlueDragon official manual: http://www.openbluedragon.org/manual/ Ready2Run CFML http://www.openbluedragon.org/openbdjam/ mailing list - http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en
