RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
Which is what I do, but why would this be anti-OOP? Are you sayiing to
follow the true OOP standards, that in each CFC, I have to make a
/ or just initialize those external objects I want to use?
~Todd
O Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Raymond Camden wrote:
> I don't think that is what he is asking Ben. He is not talking about
> making the CFC depend on request vars, rather, he is talking about
> putting an instance of a CFC in the request scope. So he can do crap
> like this:
>
> application.cfm:
>
>
> foo.cfm:
>
> sometag.cfm:
>
> stuff;
> stuff;
> more stuff;
> request.logger.log("info","Added user bob");
>
>
>
>
> ===
> Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yahoo IM : morpheus
>
> "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:44 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
> >
> >
> > > However, I'd still like to know peoples
> > > thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope.
> >
> > I have not worked *too* much with CFCs, with the exception of
> > with Flash
> > Remoting, but the idea of putting the CFCs in the request
> > scope seems to be
> > a bit anti-OO to me. I have always thought that you should
> > pass references
> > or values to the CFC you are calling. It doesn't seem very
> > scalable to make
> > a CFC assume something is already created in the request
> > scope or even that
> > the variable that is created is specifically named a certain way.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ben Johnson
> > Hostworks, Inc.
> >
> >
>
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
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
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
Ah, now THAT is a different matter. In general, I agree, it's a bad idea. However, if you are building a framework where a set of CFCs work together (in a package perhaps) then it may be safe. Spectra made heavy use of stuff like this - and I think it made sense since everything was so tightly wound together. Another view on this - most of the custom tags I write that do DB stuff will use #application.dsn# or #request.app.dsn# for the datasource. Since the custom tag is _for_ the application, I don't feel bad about this at all. === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -Original Message- > From: Ben Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:01 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question. > > > > I don't think that is what he is asking Ben. He is not talking about > > making the CFC depend on request vars, rather, he is talking about > > putting an instance of a CFC in the request scope. > > Sorry, I quoted the wrong section. I can definitely > understand using CFCs > in the request scope for that reason. Here's what I mean to quote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without > having to make > > an additional invoke/createObject call. > > > > > Ben Johnson > Hostworks, Inc. > > __ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
> I don't think that is what he is asking Ben. He is not talking about > making the CFC depend on request vars, rather, he is talking about > putting an instance of a CFC in the request scope. Sorry, I quoted the wrong section. I can definitely understand using CFCs in the request scope for that reason. Here's what I mean to quote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without having to make > an additional invoke/createObject call. Ben Johnson Hostworks, Inc. __ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm 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
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
I don't think that is what he is asking Ben. He is not talking about
making the CFC depend on request vars, rather, he is talking about
putting an instance of a CFC in the request scope. So he can do crap
like this:
application.cfm:
foo.cfm:
sometag.cfm:
stuff;
stuff;
more stuff;
request.logger.log("info","Added user bob");
===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:44 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
>
>
> > However, I'd still like to know peoples
> > thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope.
>
> I have not worked *too* much with CFCs, with the exception of
> with Flash
> Remoting, but the idea of putting the CFCs in the request
> scope seems to be
> a bit anti-OO to me. I have always thought that you should
> pass references
> or values to the CFC you are calling. It doesn't seem very
> scalable to make
> a CFC assume something is already created in the request
> scope or even that
> the variable that is created is specifically named a certain way.
>
>
>
> Ben Johnson
> Hostworks, Inc.
>
>
__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
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
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
> However, I'd still like to know peoples > thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope. I have not worked *too* much with CFCs, with the exception of with Flash Remoting, but the idea of putting the CFCs in the request scope seems to be a bit anti-OO to me. I have always thought that you should pass references or values to the CFC you are calling. It doesn't seem very scalable to make a CFC assume something is already created in the request scope or even that the variable that is created is specifically named a certain way. Ben Johnson Hostworks, Inc. __ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm 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
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
I'm asking about pushing it into the request scope more than anything.
Just checking to see if people cringe at the thought or not. =)
Thanks,
~Todd
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Raymond Camden wrote:
> Are you asking about pushing it into the request scope or putting it
> into a variable in general? I don' think there is anything wrong with
> either. Certainly if you want your custom tags to use the CFC it makes
> since to put it in the request scope.
>
> ===
> Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:19 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
> >
> >
> > I actually use #2 a lot (cept, I wrap script around all that)...
> > I find it easier to work with. However, I'd still like to
> > know peoples
> > thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope.
> >
> > Just to clarify:
> >
> > x = createObject("component","test");
> > request.x = x;
> >
> >
> > Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without
> > having to make
> > an additional invoke/createObject call.
> >
> > ~Todd
__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
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
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
Are you asking about pushing it into the request scope or putting it
into a variable in general? I don' think there is anything wrong with
either. Certainly if you want your custom tags to use the CFC it makes
since to put it in the request scope.
===
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:19 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
>
>
> I actually use #2 a lot (cept, I wrap script around all that)...
> I find it easier to work with. However, I'd still like to
> know peoples
> thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope.
>
> Just to clarify:
>
> x = createObject("component","test");
> request.x = x;
>
>
> Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without
> having to make
> an additional invoke/createObject call.
>
> ~Todd
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Raymond Camden wrote:
>
> > I think the question can be made a bit more broad - what is better:
> >
> > 1)
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2)
> >
> >
> > In general my feelings are that if you are going to do anything more
> > than call one method, you should use #2. It should be
> quicker (since you
> > have the object already), but more than that, it's handier
> to have the
> > object around I would think.
> >
> > Of course, since CFCs have been out for just a little while
> now, what I
>
__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
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
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
I actually use #2 a lot (cept, I wrap script around all that)...
I find it easier to work with. However, I'd still like to know peoples
thoughts on pushing a component into the request scope.
Just to clarify:
x = createObject("component","test");
request.x = x;
Now .. 'request.x' is available to even other cfcs without having to make
an additional invoke/createObject call.
~Todd
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Raymond Camden wrote:
> I think the question can be made a bit more broad - what is better:
>
> 1)
>
> or
>
> 2)
>
>
> In general my feelings are that if you are going to do anything more
> than call one method, you should use #2. It should be quicker (since you
> have the object already), but more than that, it's handier to have the
> object around I would think.
>
> Of course, since CFCs have been out for just a little while now, what I
> think makes sense now will probably change by next Tuesday. ;)
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:08 AM
> > Subject: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
> >
> > So, I'm pretty familiar with CFCs and getting it to work,
> > etc. I learned
> > that you can actually store a function within the variable
> > scope (in fact,
> > I learned that when you create a UDF, it's actually placed in
> > the variable
> > scope). I also recently learned that you can push a component of an
> > object inside a variable as well (via CreateObject();).
> >
> > I created a 'logging' component that all it does is takes an argument
> > (event_id) and it checks the db if it should log the event
> > and / or notify
> > someone of the event. I pushed this logging component into
> > the request
> > scope and it's now available to all my applications (even other CFCs).
> >
> > I guess my question is, is this a bad thing to do? What's
> > the impact of
> > pushing components into the request scope (besides
> > memory)...? I know
> > there's this holy war going on regarding the 'request' scope as some
> > people say it shouldn't be touched and other people claim
> > that's what it's
> > for.
> >
> > Just looking for opinions...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > ~Todd
> >
__
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
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
That long? :-p Neil Clark Team Macromedia http://www.macromedia.com/go/team Announcing Macromedia MX!! http://www.macromedia.com/software/trial/ -Original Message- From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 June 2002 15:16 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question. I think the question can be made a bit more broad - what is better: 1) or 2) In general my feelings are that if you are going to do anything more than call one method, you should use #2. It should be quicker (since you have the object already), but more than that, it's handier to have the object around I would think. Of course, since CFCs have been out for just a little while now, what I think makes sense now will probably change by next Tuesday. ;) === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:08 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question. > > > So, I'm pretty familiar with CFCs and getting it to work, > etc. I learned > that you can actually store a function within the variable > scope (in fact, > I learned that when you create a UDF, it's actually placed in > the variable > scope). I also recently learned that you can push a component of an > object inside a variable as well (via CreateObject();). > > I created a 'logging' component that all it does is takes an argument > (event_id) and it checks the db if it should log the event > and / or notify > someone of the event. I pushed this logging component into > the request > scope and it's now available to all my applications (even other CFCs). > > I guess my question is, is this a bad thing to do? What's > the impact of > pushing components into the request scope (besides > memory)...? I know > there's this holy war going on regarding the 'request' scope as some > people say it shouldn't be touched and other people claim > that's what it's > for. > > Just looking for opinions... > > Thanks, > ~Todd > > -- > > Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | > http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator)| > http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | > > > __ 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
RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
I think the question can be made a bit more broad - what is better: 1) or 2) In general my feelings are that if you are going to do anything more than call one method, you should use #2. It should be quicker (since you have the object already), but more than that, it's handier to have the object around I would think. Of course, since CFCs have been out for just a little while now, what I think makes sense now will probably change by next Tuesday. ;) === Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Macromedia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM : morpheus "My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:08 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question. > > > So, I'm pretty familiar with CFCs and getting it to work, > etc. I learned > that you can actually store a function within the variable > scope (in fact, > I learned that when you create a UDF, it's actually placed in > the variable > scope). I also recently learned that you can push a component of an > object inside a variable as well (via CreateObject();). > > I created a 'logging' component that all it does is takes an argument > (event_id) and it checks the db if it should log the event > and / or notify > someone of the event. I pushed this logging component into > the request > scope and it's now available to all my applications (even other CFCs). > > I guess my question is, is this a bad thing to do? What's > the impact of > pushing components into the request scope (besides > memory)...? I know > there's this holy war going on regarding the 'request' scope as some > people say it shouldn't be touched and other people claim > that's what it's > for. > > Just looking for opinions... > > Thanks, > ~Todd > > -- > > Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ | > http://www.flashCFM.com/ - webRat (Moderator)| > http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator) | > > > __ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm 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
