RE: Opinion: CFC / Request scope question.
I think the question can be made a bit more broad - what is better: 1) cfinvoke component=test method=x or 2) cfset x = createObject(component,test) cfset y = test.foo() 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
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) cfinvoke component=test method=x or 2) cfset x = createObject(component,test) cfset y = test.foo() 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 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: cfscript x = createObject(component,test); request.x = x; /cfscript 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) cfinvoke component=test method=x or 2) cfset x = createObject(component,test) cfset y = test.foo() 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.
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: cfscript x = createObject(component,test); request.x = x; /cfscript 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) cfinvoke component=test method=x or 2) cfset x = createObject(component,test) cfset y = test.foo() 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'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: cfscript x = createObject(component,test); request.x = x; /cfscript 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.
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 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: cfset request.logger = createObject(component,myKickButtLoggerCFC) foo.cfm: cfset request.logger.log(critical,App has broken) sometag.cfm: cfscript stuff; stuff; more stuff; request.logger.log(info,Added user bob); /cfscript === 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.
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.
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.
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 cffunction / 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: cfset request.logger = createObject(component,myKickButtLoggerCFC) foo.cfm: cfset request.logger.log(critical,App has broken) sometag.cfm: cfscript stuff; stuff; more stuff; request.logger.log(info,Added user bob); /cfscript === 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
