On Wednesday 02 Apr 2003 14:38 pm, Dave Watts wrote:
> > This is why we use Apache as our web server, and proxt CF
> > request through to the actual CF server - we can limit access
> > to /cfdocs and /cfide/ to only internal IP adress'
>
> While I like Apache well enough, you can do this with any w
> > However, if you don't put a RDS password up (which would
> > be horrible in itself), a person can browse the descriptor
> > of your CFC files. Just a reminder. ;)
>
> This is why we use Apache as our web server, and proxt CF
> request through to the actual CF server - we can limit access
>
On Monday 31 Mar 2003 17:25 pm, Raymond Camden wrote:
> However, if you don't put a RDS password up (which would be horrible in
> itself), a person can browse the descriptor of your CFC files. Just a
> reminder. ;)
This is why we use Apache as our web server, and proxt CF request through to
the a
rly PIER System, Inc.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice : 360.756.8080 x12
fax : 360.647.5351
www.audiencecentral.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:57 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Fusebox circuits (was: CF
> > However, you should only put files in a web-accessible
> > directory if you intend for people to be able to fetch
> > or run them directly within their browser by entering
> > the appropriate URL. If you have files that aren't
> > intended to be used that way, they shouldn't be in a
> > we
> I simply prefix any file that shouldn't be run directly with
> dsp_ or act_ or similar, and add
>
>
>
>
>
> to application.cfm . Tell me why that's less secure.
Let's say someone finds a security hole in your web server that allows
people to get files under the web root - like the infamou
> However, you should only put files in a web-accessible directory if you
> intend for people to be able to fetch or run them directly within their
> browser by entering the appropriate URL. If you have files that aren't
> intended to be used that way, they shouldn't be in a web-accessible
> direct
Brad Howerter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:25 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: CFCs - get'ers Vs. return object
>
>
> I just put all the CFC's in a web accessible directory and
> then don't put 'access="remote"' o
I just put all the CFC's in a web accessible directory and then don't put
'access="remote"' on them if I don't want them to truly be accessible.
>> Don't you want CFC's in a web accessible dir if you want to
>> use them for web services? Or is that like a clueless newbie question?
>
>That's actu
> > > If you do store application settings in xml they really
> > > should be stored in a .cfm template so that the CF Server
> > > will protect the data from someone attempting to get at
> > > it from typing a URL into their browser,
> >
> > Why not put it outside the webroot?
>
> Lots of dev
>> Don't you want CFC's in a web accessible dir if you want
>> to
>> use them for web services? Or is that like a clueless
>> newbie question?
> That's actually a very good question. Just because you use
> a CFC does
> not mean you necessary want to expose a web service. If
> you do want your
> CF
> Don't you want CFC's in a web accessible dir if you want to
> use them for web services? Or is that like a clueless newbie question?
That's actually a very good question. Just because you use a CFC does
not mean you necessary want to expose a web service. If you do want your
CFC to be used as a
>> > On Sunday, Mar 30, 2003, at 13:15 US/Pacific, S. Isaac
>> > Dealey wrote:
>> > > If you do store application settings in xml they
>> > > really should be
>> > > stored in a .cfm template so that the CF Server will
>> > > protect the
>> > > data from someone attempting to get at it from typing
>> > On Sunday, Mar 30, 2003, at 13:15 US/Pacific, S. Isaac
>> > Dealey wrote:
>> >> If you do store application settings in xml they
>> >> really should
>> >> be stored in a .cfm template so that the CF Server
>> >> will
>> >> protect the
>> >> data
>> >> from someone attempting to get at it from
> > On Sunday, Mar 30, 2003, at 13:15 US/Pacific, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
> > > If you do store application settings in xml they really should be
> > > stored in a .cfm template so that the CF Server will protect the
> > > data from someone attempting to get at it from typing a URL into
> > > the
> > On Sunday, Mar 30, 2003, at 13:15 US/Pacific, S. Isaac
> > Dealey wrote:
> >> If you do store application settings in xml they really should
> >> be stored in a .cfm template so that the CF Server will
> >> protect the
> >> data
> >> from someone attempting to get at it from typing a URL
> >> i
> On Sunday, Mar 30, 2003, at 13:15 US/Pacific, S. Isaac
> Dealey wrote:
>> If you do store application settings in xml they really
>> should
>> be stored in a .cfm template so that the CF Server will
>> protect the
>> data
>> from someone attempting to get at it from typing a URL
>> into their
>>
> On Sunday, Mar 30, 2003, at 13:15 US/Pacific, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
> > If you do store application settings in xml they really should
> > be stored in a .cfm template so that the CF Server will protect the
> > data
> > from someone attempting to get at it from typing a URL into their
> > browse
On Sunday, Mar 30, 2003, at 14:19 US/Pacific, Matthew Walker wrote:
> I've been wondering recently why Fusebox uses a cfswitch at all rather
> than
> simply using a file structure. To me surely
> fuseaction=accounts.editdetails
> could map to something like /accounts/editdetails/index.cfm without
On Sunday, Mar 30, 2003, at 13:15 US/Pacific, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
> If you do store application settings in xml they really should
> be stored in a .cfm template so that the CF Server will protect the
> data
> from someone attempting to get at it from typing a URL into their
> browser,
Why no
On Sunday, Mar 30, 2003, at 10:10 US/Pacific, Joe Eugene wrote:
>> ... load all the data into some instance variable ...
> What is a true instance variable in a CFC?
>
>
>
>
> Is the above equivalent to
>
> public class SomeVars{
> public String myVar="Hello";
> }
No. creates a non-public in
> > Then of course, there's cfinclude... ASP has no means of dynamically
> > including content, which is a big advantage in cf, but in most cases I
I believe that ASP v3 is able to do dynamically included content.
> I've been wondering recently why Fusebox uses a cfswitch at all rather
than
> sim
>> Then of course, there's cfinclude... ASP has no means of
>> dynamically
>> including content, which is a big advantage in cf, but in
>> most cases I
>> don't
>> see cfincludes taking advantage of the fact that the
>> template attribute is
>> dynamic. I see a lot of the FuseBox method...
>>
>>
per Services LLC
Web Site http://www.webapper.com
Blog http://www.webapper.net
Webapper
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFCs - get'ers Vs. return object
> Then of course, there's
> Then of course, there's cfinclude... ASP has no means of dynamically
> including content, which is a big advantage in cf, but in most cases I
> don't
> see cfincludes taking advantage of the fact that the template attribute is
> dynamic. I see a lot of the FuseBox method...
>
>
>
>
>>blah blah">
> Building strings like the above for page out is quite slow
> is CFMX. Every tool has its specific use... i dont see a
> use for CustomTags in CFMX, other than building pages
> layouts.
You don't think there's any value in being able to express attributes by
name instead of argumen
Joe Eugene
---Original Message---
From: "S. Isaac Dealey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 03/30/03 04:15 PM
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CFCs - get'ers Vs. return object
>
> I think that problem of not necessarily understanding the pros and cons
CFC's have public/private/protected, static/final instance
variables?
Can somebody explain the above or point to any docs?
Thanks
Joe Eugene
---Original Message---
From: Matthew Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 03/30/03 02:52 PM
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: R
s.
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:42 AM
> Subject: Re: CFCs - get'ers Vs. return object
>> On Saturday, Mar 29, 2003, at 16
tions like
this.
- Original Message -
From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: CFCs - get'ers Vs. return object
> On Saturday, Mar 29, 2003, at 16:13 US/Pacifi
On Saturday, Mar 29, 2003, at 16:13 US/Pacific, Matthew Walker wrote:
> I am only dabbling in CFCs but it seems sensible to me to retrieve a
> structure of related information using one getter, then just accessing
> that.
> But maybe I just don't "get" CFCs. Perhaps it's up to the CFC to cache
>
> On Saturday, Mar 29, 2003, at 18:35 US/Pacific, S. Isaac
> Dealey wrote:
>> structkeyexists() is also better than isdefined() imho
>> since it's more
>> specific although I wasn't entirely sure it would produce
>> the desired
>> result
> structKeyExists() will likely be faster (and it's safer -
On Saturday, Mar 29, 2003, at 18:35 US/Pacific, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
> structkeyexists() is also better than isdefined() imho since it's more
> specific although I wasn't entirely sure it would produce the desired
> result
structKeyExists() will likely be faster (and it's safer - but it's
comp
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 12:01 AM
> Subject: CFCs - get'ers Vs. return object
>> I'm just starting to write my first CFC in anger, as it
>> were, and was
> curious
>> about wha
> On Friday, Mar 28, 2003, at 10:59 US/Pacific, S. Isaac
> Dealey wrote:
>>
>> > required="true">
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Eek! Evaluate! :)
> Try this instead:
>
>required="true">
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
You're right, my bad. :) I was
iginal Message -
From: "Thomas Chiverton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 12:01 AM
Subject: CFCs - get'ers Vs. return object
> I'm just starting to write my first CFC in anger, as it were, and was
curio
On Friday, Mar 28, 2003, at 10:59 US/Pacific, S. Isaac Dealey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Eek! Evaluate! :)
Try this instead:
Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive.
> I'm just starting to write my first CFC in anger, as it
> were, and was curious
> about what others were doing.
> Are people writing a number of of
> getX,getY,getName,get methods, each
> returning a string/numer and then using
>name="objLocation">
> #objLocation.getName(156537)#
> OR
CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFCs - get'ers Vs. return object
>
>
> On Friday 28 Mar 2003 13:22 pm, webguy wrote:
> >
> >
>
> That's invalid isn't it ? You need a LHS and RHS in a cfset ?
>
> --
> Tom C
> "Land of the f
On Friday 28 Mar 2003 13:22 pm, webguy wrote:
>
>
That's invalid isn't it ? You need a LHS and RHS in a cfset ?
--
Tom C
"Land of the free, home of the brave... you have to be brave to live there and
enjoy the freedoms"
~|
Ar
You can alos do it this way
#objLocation.getName()#
#objLocation.getXXX()#
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 March 2003 12:02
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFCs - get'ers Vs. return object
I'm just starting to write my first CFC in anger,
I'm just starting to write my first CFC in anger, as it were, and was curious
about what others were doing.
Are people writing a number of of getX,getY,getName,get methods, each
returning a string/numer and then using
#objLocation.getName(156537)#
OR writing a single get that returns a query
42 matches
Mail list logo
