Sry, that should've read: "In short, variables created via the
cfproperty|property-generated setters (in CF9) are private-to-the-CFC. And
variables in the this scope are public-to-the-CFC."
> In short, variables created via the cfproperty|property-generated
> setters (i
u can get or reset the properties only by
calling get or set methods."
- "The default attribute has no effect on the property and does not set an
initial property value"
- "A direct assignment statement, such as myCFC.MyProp=27 creates a standard
This scope variable in the CFC
>> CF 9 changed this significantly. With CF 9, using CFPROPERTY actually
>> creates a public variable in addition to creating documentation. In
>> addition to that, it also "creates" accessors and mutators (setters
>> and getters). It doesn't actually generate visible code in your CFC,
>> but thos
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Dave Watts wrote:
> CF 9 changed this significantly. With CF 9, using CFPROPERTY actually
> creates a public variable in addition to creating documentation. In
> addition to that, it also "creates" accessors and mutators (setters
> and getters). It doesn't actuall
> Can anyone please tell me the difference between cfproperty tag and variables
> defined using this scope. Both are used to define
> CFC properties?
The answer to this is a bit complicated, and version-dependent.
If you're using CF 8 or earlier, the CFPROPERTY tag does noth
with
This scope
According to the docs, cfproperty only sets Metadata. I just did this
recently and even though I could set the initial values I had trouble
changing them and using them just inside the cfc.
I resorted to Notice that there is no var
in there. If the variables are outside of a fun
cannot use
var.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: fun and learning [mailto:funandlrnn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 1:39 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: difference between cfproperty and variables defined with This
scope
Hi All,
Can anyone please tell me the difference between
Hi All,
Can anyone please tell me the difference between cfproperty tag and variables
defined using this scope. Both are used to define CFC properties?
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let
On Friday 03 Aug 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Or any alternative way to set "this" scope variables which is available
> in Application.cfc without having any Application.cfc?
A server-wide mapping in the administrator, for instance ?
-
Hi,
Please do not ask why but I am just trying to set a parameter which is normally
defined in Application.cfc this scope, in normal CFM page.
This parameter is new ColdFusion application layer mapping feature.
When we need to define an application layer mapping we can use following
I didn't gather that you also cannot invoke methods of persistently scoped
components via form or url.
Not directly you can't. You could invoke persistently scoped objects from
within the transitional one created when called from the form, with some
caveats.
I doubt many would consider this a
> ...What you are not realizing is that when you
> post directly to the CFC url by the action property of the form tag,
> you are creating a new instance of the object...
Bingo. That was indeed my problem. In the docs it is written that you may only
transiently invoke component methods via form
On 3/8/07, Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Isn't web services all about posting to CFC's? Am I missing something
> here?
If you think that's the same thing, then yes, you are =)
--
> I'm not certified, but I have been told that I'm certifiable...
> Visit http://www.opensourcecf.com today!
Isn't web services all about posting to CFC's? Am I missing something here?
Russ
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:32 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFCs and the THIS scope
>
> Essentia
Essentially, you should *NOT* ever post to a cfc.
But I like posting to my cfc's sometimes. I just understand I am creating
one-off controller type cfcs when I do this.
--
Ian Skinner
Web Programmer
BloodSource
www.BloodSource.org
Sacramento, CA
-
| 1 | |
- Bina
Essentially, you should *NOT* ever post to a cfc.
What you do is post the page to itself (or another cfm) and then pass the
arguments to the method like so:
Rick
~|
ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2
Build sales & marketing dashboard
ould get the desired result:
#tempObj.tableName# should return whatever you passed in above.
Of course since your object is not in the above case scoped into the
session, it would only be available for the duration of the request.
I won't even get into whether it's ok to use the THIS sc
Have to admit I find it shocking that a THIS scoped variable cannot be updated
within the enclosing component by using a simple assignment statement...
Thanks to all for your replies.
It can be done that way. What you are not realizing is that when you post
directly to the CFC url by the acti
>Because you're posting to temp.cfc directly, not the temp.cfc you've loaded
>into the session scope.
When the cfm is loaded, a session scoped component is instantiated. When the
update2 form is submitted, the session scoped component property "tableName" is
updated as expected. The odd part (to
Wow. Well then, since this.tableName=arguments.tableName will simply never work
as intended (as in the update1 method) I will stick to
session.temp.tableName=arguments.tableName (as in the update2 method). Have to
admit I find it shocking that a THIS scoped variable cannot be updated within
the
> How would one post to the session scoped temp.cfc via a form?
You couldn't, directly. You would have to post to another page, which could
send data to your session object.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorize
>Because you're posting to temp.cfc directly, not the temp.cfc you've loaded
>into the session scope.
How would one post to the session scoped temp.cfc via a form?
~|
Deploy Web Applications Quickly across the enterprise with Col
>Because you're posting to temp.cfc directly, not the temp.cfc you've loaded
>into the session scope.
Could you expand on that?
How would one post to the session scoped temp.cfc via a form?
~|
Macromedia ColdFusion MX7
Upgrade
Because you're posting to temp.cfc directly, not the temp.cfc you've loaded
into the session scope.
Rick
On 3/8/07, joe smiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Given the files below - why does update1() fail to update the cfc
> property?
>
> file TEMP.CFM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> temp
>
>
>
>
> upd
,
which of course hangs around for future reference.
Jaime Metcher
> -Original Message-
> From: joe smiths [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 9 March 2007 4:36 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: CFCs and the THIS scope
>
>
> Given the files below - why does update1(
Given the files below - why does update1() fail to update the cfc property?
file TEMP.CFM:
temp
update1:
selected>table1
selected>table2
selected>table3
update2:
selected>table1
selected>table2
selected>table3
session.temp.tableNam
Here's a weird issue we just came across where we had to call a
function with the THIS scope. We have a UDF library that has a
function called "extends" that lets us extend it with our other
specialized udf libraries at runtime. Well, some of the functions call
each other. And, th
> Hi all,
> I am new to OOP, but I know CFML pretty well.
> I started playing with ColdFusion Components a couple of
> years ago and
> I never found a good reason to use the "This" scope.
> Am I missing anything?
I'd recommend not using it except when calling
through the 'this' scope and expect never to alter it. It all falls down to
personal taste with my own being to use specific interfaces to get and set
data.
The only time I use the word 'this' in a component is when I'm persisting
the component and have to return it from a
Hi all,
I am new to OOP, but I know CFML pretty well.
I started playing with ColdFusion Components a couple of years ago and
I never found a good reason to use the "This" scope.
Am I missing anything?
Thanks.
~|
Fi
On Apr 1, 2005 3:46 AM, Mike Kear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But in reading the discussions here I thought it was now considered
> poor practice to use the THIS scope in CFCs, and instead using the
> variables scope was the thing to do.
Correct. variables scope is better tha
d on your requirements you are not doing anything wrong.
--
Ian Skinner
Web Programmer
BloodSource
www.BloodSource.org
Sacramento, CA
"C code. C code run. Run code run. Please!"
- Cynthia Dunning
-Original Message-
From: Kerry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April
On Apr 1, 2005 8:27 AM, Michael T. Tangorre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This exact question was disucssed earlier this week, check the archives.
> Application.cfc is an exception to the CFC best practices as a lot of its
> functionality are abstracted from the user thus require a different play
ne Yellow for that hallway.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:12 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Use THIS scope or not?
Thanks for your response Michael. I have seen endless discussion of the
"this" scope for months.
I wrote
abstracted from the user: you dont call application.cfc
play book: way of doing something
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 April 2005 15:12
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Use THIS scope or not?
Thanks for your response Michael. I have seen endless
Abstracted = Seperated or hidden
Different Play Book = Different rules apply here
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 9:12 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Use THIS scope or not?
Thanks for your response Michael. I have seen endless
Thanks for your response Michael. I have seen endless discussion of
the "this" scope for months.
I wrote the question I did, because I am confused. Use "this" or
not? I've read all that stuff, and now I dont know what to do.
What does "... abstracted from the
> From: Mike Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm confused. Nothing unusual in that - I'm easily confused.
>
> But in reading the discussions here I thought it was now considered
> poor practice to use the THIS scope in CFCs, and instead using the
> variabl
I'm confused. Nothing unusual in that - I'm easily confused.
But in reading the discussions here I thought it was now considered
poor practice to use the THIS scope in CFCs, and instead using the
variables scope was the thing to do.
But in the CF7 documentation, the examples and
Yes - all worked as it should using VARIABLES.whatever instead of the THIS
scope. The automatically instantiated Application.cfc can't be accessed from
anywhere in your code anyway, afaik, so the THIS scope isn't terribly useful
in this case.
I blogged this in my nearly empty and m
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:15:29 +0800, James Holmes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I tried this and the VARIABLES scope worked just as well in
> Application.cfc.
Really? Oooo, that's good to know...
--
Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/
Team Fusebox -- http://fusebox.org/
Got Gmail? --
Actually, I tried this and the VARIABLES scope worked just as well in
Application.cfc.
Try it yourself - please correct me if I'm wrong.
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 31 March 2005 5:53
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: this scope
&
> I've been avoiding the "this" scope in my CFCs after
> reading several blogs and posts on the topic. Is that
> still the best practice in CFMX 7? I ask because all
> the examples I see of application.cfc set and
> refer to this.name, this.applicationTimeout, etc
ED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, guys. (And I'll never spell applicAtion.cfc
> with a lowercase A again.) :)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:51 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject:
Thanks for the clarification, guys. (And I'll never spell applicAtion.cfc
with a lowercase A again.) :)
-Original Message-
From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 1:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: this scope
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:28:43 -0700,
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:28:43 -0700, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been avoiding the "this" scope in my CFCs after reading several blogs
> and posts on the topic. Is that still the best practice in CFMX 7? I ask
> because all the examples I see of ap
> I've been avoiding the "this" scope in my CFCs after reading
> several blogs and posts on the topic. Is that still the best
> practice in CFMX 7? I ask because all the examples I see of
> application.cfc set and refer to this.name,
> this.applicationTi
005 13:28:43 -0700, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've been avoiding the "this" scope in my CFCs after reading several blogs
> > and posts on the topic. Is that still the best practice in CFMX 7? I ask
> > because all the examples I see of application.c
Actually those are not the only examples that refer to it from MACR.
I was reading through some of the docs a couple weeks back in regards
to CFCs and it was used quite a bit in there.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:28:43 -0700, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been avoiding the &
I've been avoiding the "this" scope in my CFCs after reading several blogs
and posts on the topic. Is that still the best practice in CFMX 7? I ask
because all the examples I see of application.cfc set and refer to
this.name, this.applicat
THIS scope
LOL - there's a book I'll have to look out for and follow it religiously ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Lynch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 25 February 2005 9:21
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: THIS scope
Someone's been reading The Pragmatic Programmer! Are
LOL - there's a book I'll have to look out for and follow it religiously ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Lynch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 25 February 2005 9:21
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: THIS scope
Someone's been reading The Pragmatic Programmer! Are you
good habits and best-practices.
The new version of my code is far superior to the old one; the getters and
setters let me validate the input, check if the user should even be able to
read or set the value (which was previously in the THIS scope for any
muggins to mess with) etc.
-Original Messag
ces.
The new version of my code is far superior to the old one; the getters and
setters let me validate the input, check if the user should even be able to
read or set the value (which was previously in the THIS scope for any
muggins to mess with) etc.
-Original Message-
From: Adrian
pplied to everything
we do.
Ade
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 25 February 2005 01:00
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: THIS scope
I'm an advocate of OOP but not a zealot. There are times when I see
someone create a class lik
> Well, yeah. That's a way to do it.
> Is anyone else conflicted as to how many workaround we
> should make to
> enable OOP in CF when we're already able to develop some
> pretty nice
> applications?
> -Joe
I'm an advocate of OOP but not a zealot. There are times when I see
someone create a cla
> In retrospect I believe the cfinvoke tag will allow you to
> execute a method of a CFC without invoking the CFC ...
It's worth pointing out that this will in fact create an instance of the CFC
itself. However, because you're not storing a reference to that instance
anywhere, you won't have any
>> That doesn't really cover "static," though - what makes a
>> static
>> member static is that it belongs to the type instead of
>> one instance
>> of a type. I.e.:
>>
>> InstanceOne.StaticVar = 1
>> InstanceTwo.StaticVar = 2
>>
>>
>> #InstanceOne.StaticVar#
>
>Application.cfc
>- onapplicationst
instance
> (so it's a
> class "thing"), you can't change it like a non-final
> variable. It's
> messy and nasty, which is why I prefer to just use a
> variable in the
> 'this' scope.
> cheers,
> barneyb
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:04:
> Mostly because if you're looking for a field,
> you're not going to look in the methods section
> of the class docs, even if the "field" is
> actually a method, as you proposed. Just a
> differentiation between
> state and behaviour that you'd sacrifice.
If I knew the data was in that class (or
al variable. It's
messy and nasty, which is why I prefer to just use a variable in the
'this' scope.
cheers,
barneyb
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:04:35 -0500, Joe Rinehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That doesn't really cover "static," though - what makes a static
Mostly because if you're looking for a field, you're not going to look
in the methods section of the class docs, even if the "field" is
actually a method, as you proposed. Just a differentiation between
state and behaviour that you'd sacrifice.
cheers,
barneyb
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:37:09 -0500,
Thanks all for the very interesting info.
BTW, who doesn't have 50 Gmail invites and no friends ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 24 February 2005 8:24
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: THIS scope
Amen to that, brother Joe!
On Wed, 2
Amen to that, brother Joe!
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:17:23 -0500, Joe Rinehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, yeah. That's a way to do it.
>
> Is anyone else conflicted as to how many workaround we should make to
> enable OOP in CF when we're already able to develop some pretty nice
> applicati
o.StaticVar = 2
>
> >
> > #InstanceOne.StaticVar#
>
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:52 -0500, S. Isaac Dealey
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I use the 'this' scope for what would be public static
> >> > final variable
> >
field in
> generated
> documentation is a pain, as is the inability to use
> CFPROPERTY to
> document the field.
> cheers,
> barneyb
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:52 -0500, S. Isaac Dealey
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I use the 'this' scope for w
atic
> member static is that it belongs to the type instead of
> one instance
> of a type. I.e.:
> InstanceOne.StaticVar = 1
> InstanceTwo.StaticVar = 2
>
> #InstanceOne.StaticVar#
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:52 -0500, S. Isaac Dealey
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
d.
cheers,
barneyb
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:52:52 -0500, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I use the 'this' scope for what would be public static
> > final variable
> > in Java. That is, values that are of use both inside and
> > outside a
>
Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I use the 'this' scope for what would be public static
> > final variable
> > in Java. That is, values that are of use both inside and
> > outside a
> > class, but never change. CF doesn't give you the ability
> I use the 'this' scope for what would be public static
> final variable
> in Java. That is, values that are of use both inside and
> outside a
> class, but never change. CF doesn't give you the ability
> to actually
> make them read-only (or make them
I use the 'this' scope for what would be public static final variable
in Java. That is, values that are of use both inside and outside a
class, but never change. CF doesn't give you the ability to actually
make them read-only (or make them class fields, rather than instance
fiel
On Wednesday 23 Feb 2005 09:03 am, James Holmes wrote:
> Does anyone use the THIS scope any more? Having just converted some nasty
I put public attributes and simple things that aren't worth writing a get and
set for in it.
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Pr
> Does anyone use the THIS scope any more? Having just
> converted some nasty
> old (CF 6.0) CFCs using THIS in external code and all
> sorts of other bad
> things to really nice, new, VARIABLES scope code using
> getters and setters,
> I can't see a use for THIS, e
> Does anyone use the THIS scope any more? Having just
> converted some nasty
> old (CF 6.0) CFCs using THIS in external code and all
> sorts of other bad
> things to really nice, new, VARIABLES scope code using
> getters and setters,
> I can't see a use for THIS, e
James,
I use the "THIS" scope for creating complex types to be sent over Web
Services. I think that's about the only time I use it anymore.
-Joe
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:03:43 +0800, James Holmes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone use the THIS scope any more? Ha
> http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/7/htmldocs/1115.htm
> > http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/7/htmldocs/1123.htm
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:03:43 +0800, James Holmes
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Does anyone use the TH
-Talk
Subject: Re: THIS scope
Application.cfc effectively replaces the tag. This tag:
becomes the following code in the pseudo-constructor area of Application.cfc
(i.e., immediately after the opening
tag):
See the following documentation:
Reference Manual:
http://livedocs.macromedi
; http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/7/htmldocs/1115.htm
> http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/7/htmldocs/1123.htm
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:03:43 +0800, James Holmes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does anyone use the THIS scope any more? Having just
/0693.htm
Developing ColdFusion Applications:
http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/7/htmldocs/1115.htm
http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/7/htmldocs/1123.htm
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:03:43 +0800, James Holmes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone use the THIS scope
Does anyone use the THIS scope any more? Having just converted some nasty
old (CF 6.0) CFCs using THIS in external code and all sorts of other bad
things to really nice, new, VARIABLES scope code using getters and setters,
I can't see a use for THIS, except for the return in an init() m
Here is a different question..
Is XML a supported returntype?
At 09:42 AM 7/18/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Let me add - though - that I encourage the use of cfproperty. Like I
>said before, it can be used for validation, and it also shows up when
>you display the CFC, which adds a helpful reminde
At 09:32 AM 7/18/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > Tsk, Tsk... Ray is wrong. ( That never happens).
>
>Actually, I'm not. (grin)
>
> > Create a CFC called name.cfc :
> >
> >
> >
>[deletia]
>
> >
> > Supposedly, this is not possible without properties. (
> > according to one
> > of my conversati
oo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:33 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Properties in CFCs: Here is the use (Was R
ECTED]
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 7:48 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Using THIS scope in CFCs
>
>
> Ray, you
> Tsk, Tsk... Ray is wrong. ( That never happens).
Actually, I'm not. (grin)
> Create a CFC called name.cfc :
>
>
>
[deletia]
>
> Supposedly, this is not possible without properties. (
> according to one
> of my conversations during the beta cycle). My own CF Server
Incorrect.
Tsk, Tsk... Ray is wrong. ( That never happens).
In his defense, so is the documentation that states that properties do
nothing for CFCs except provide metadata documentation.
This is an example of how you can use them (Something similar to this is in
the Web services docs, but the same
a Certified Instructor
>Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer
>Fig Leaf Software
>1400 16th St NW, # 500
>Washington DC 20036
>202.797.6570 (direct line)
>www.figleaf.com
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent
Ray, you seem to encourage a lot of usage of the word 'ray' in our
applications... I thought I saw a best practice somewhere that said having
'ray' in our apps is a "bad thing" ...? :D
~Todd
At 06:16 PM 7/17/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> Cool stuff and good to know. My inner toddler has
>found he
02 5:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Using THIS scope in CFCs
> the only comment I have is that if you are using components to
> build object modeled applications, you shouldn't be including
> files from cfcs.
I don't know what the original poster is using includes for, but
Cool stuff and good to know. My inner toddler has
found her pacifier. Thanks, Ray.
-Patti
On 7/17/02 5:08 PM, "Raymond Camden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now explain . In the example below, for example,
>> what would be different if you made ID a property of the
>> human object rather th
> Now explain . In the example below, for example,
> what would be different if you made ID a property of the
> human object rather than a non-var local variable?
When using CFCs, does absolutely nothing. It can be used to
help describe web services, but strictly speaking for CFCs, they don'
> the only comment I have is that if you are using components to
> build object modeled applications, you shouldn't be including
> files from cfcs.
I don't know what the original poster is using includes for, but I think
there are some really valid reasons to include files into a CFC.
Unfortuna
run the risk of variable
>> overwriting when calling cfcs from other cfcs, then why is it
>> "more local" or "private" not to var?
>>
>
>
> Sorry, let me back up a bit.
>
> Imagine a CFC that looks like so:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
uot; or "private" not to var?
>
Sorry, let me back up a bit.
Imagine a CFC that looks like so:
What I have here is the bare skeleton of a "human" CFC. I also define to
variables, name and age, in the this scope. These values are pu
>> That being said - you can use a 'pseudo' private scope in CFCs by not
>> using var or This. In ways, it acts like a local Variables scope for
>
> Wait... I just got confused. Why is it more private if you don't var the
> variable? I get the "This" aspect just fine. But if by not var-ing, you
> That being said - you can use a 'pseudo' private scope in CFCs by not
> using var or This. In ways, it acts like a local Variables scope for
Wait... I just got confused. Why is it more private if you don't var the
variable? I get the "This" aspect just fine. But if by not var-ing, you
run th
Simon,
Why don't you think files should be included in CFCs? I'm interested in
hearing why you think that violates the OO paradigm.
Hal
-Original Message-
From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 4:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Using THI
Alo bare in mind that the This scope is 'public' to the caller. Ie, if I
make an instance of your CFC, and you set this.name to 'foo', I can
output yourcfc.name in my code. So, don't put anything sensitive there.
That being said - you can use a 'pseudo' privat
7, 2002 4:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Using THIS scope in CFCs
the only comment I have is that if you are using components to build object
modeled applications, you shouldn't be including files from cfcs. My
opinion is that components are not just another code re-use
constructthey'
AIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 4:25 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Using THIS scope in CFCs
I'm using THIS scope in my included files used within my CFCs since the
argument scope is not available. (I believe is known issue). The downside to
this is I have to append the argument scope
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
