Sounds good, Jason.
Thanks for the overview and examples!
This is making more and more sense each hour!
Rick
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Durham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:55 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification Required
to load every object into the Application
scope (especially on a shared server). Try to stay away from using
CGI, session, request, application, or server scopes from within your
components. Instead, pass those values into a method via an argument.
-Original Message-
From: Rick Faircloth
]
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Clarification Required Concerning CFC...
> It just seems to make little sense to have two scopes named the same
> thing which have nothing to do with each other.
This is true for any two separate CF programs. Each CF program h
What! Adobe must submit or I'll... I'll... oh, forget it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Will Tomlinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:32 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Clarification Required Concerning CFC...
>
> >It just
CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification Required Concerning CFC...
>
> > It just seems to make little sense to have two scopes named
> > the same thing which have nothing to do with each other.
>
> This is true for any two separate CF programs. Each CF program has its own
> l
>It just seems to make little sense to have two scopes named the same thing
>which have nothing to do with each other. It would be like me creating
>two variables with the same name, but having different values. Now that would
>be confusing!
Would you just go with the flow? I doubt Adobe is gonn
> It just seems to make little sense to have two scopes named
> the same thing which have nothing to do with each other.
This is true for any two separate CF programs. Each CF program has its own
local scope. The same is true for CFML custom tags.
> I could have variables.time in a cfc that is 4
to make more sense.
> cfcVariables.time vs variables.time... instantly recognizable.
>
> That's just the way it seems as I get started with cfc's...
>
> Rick
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 21,
iables.time... instantly recognizable.
That's just the way it seems as I get started with cfc's...
Rick
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:13 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification Required Con
> However, I *do* wish they had come up with a different name
> for the scope exclusive to CFC's! Maybe something
> "varcomponent" or something. Anything besides the name of a
> scope already in use elsewhere!
That would make less sense. The Variables scope is the local scope for any
CF progr
g me out.
Rick
> -Original Message-
> From: Josh Nathanson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 1:14 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Clarification Required Concerning CFC...
>
> Rick - in the CFC function, variables.DSN refers to the variables scope
e -
From: "Rick Faircloth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk"
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:44 AM
Subject: Clarification Required Concerning CFC...
> Hi, all...
>
> This statement in a CFC function confuses me:
>
>
>
> Why? Because it seems back
Hi, all...
This statement in a CFC function confuses me:
Why? Because it seems backwards. It seems to me that
I've already defined my variables.DSN values outside of
the CFC and am passing that value into CFC as an argument.
It only makes sense, then, for me to use this, instead:
Backward
Richard White wrote:
> i was under the impression that if i set a locale as English UK and then used
> the follwing code:
>
> lsdateformat("07/24/1978","dd/mm/") that it would convert this date into
> 24/07/1978
> but i am getting an error '07/24/1978 is an invalid date format' but if i use
oh i see!
thanks claude you have really made me understand this now :)
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
>>it seems to me that lsdateformat function takes an english uk
formated date (dd/mm/)
More precisely, I would say it takes a date in the default locale
format, or the locale previously defined by setLocale()
If your server is English, then yes, you are right.
For servers un US, it will tak
Hi
i need some clarification on the lsdateformat and dateformat if you can help!
i was under the impression that if i set a locale as English UK and then used
the follwing code:
lsdateformat("07/24/1978","dd/mm/") that it would convert this date into
24/07/1978
but i
Ah, good point, Michael. Thanks for the clarification.
Jon
On Dec 11, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Michael MacDonald wrote:
> Just a point of clarification Jon, if you use the FCKEditor under
> the LGPL license you can freely modify the code to your hearts
> content. Its only if yo
Just a point of clarification Jon, if you use the FCKEditor under the LGPL
license you can freely modify the code to your hearts content. Its only if you
wish to "distribute" the source code that you need to make your modifications
public.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gp
(*nods*) this is true and I looked into that as an option, however in
the end it became extremely clear that it was less time (and therefore
money) to install TinyMCE and a third-party image manager than modify
the richtext implementation.
Obviously I'd love to be able to go back and change it lat
> Just a note on that point - the CF8 RichText version has
> images, files and spell checking disabled.
I think you may be able to enable some or all of those features yourself, by
editing one of the FCK configuration files in /CFIDE/scripts/ajax/fckeditor.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
htt
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:29 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: Clarification about FCKEditor Use on websites...
> >
> > Not at all Rick. Unless you plan to do major modifications to the
> > source and wish to keep those mo
, 2007 12:29 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Clarification about FCKEditor Use on websites...
>
> Not at all Rick. Unless you plan to do major modifications to the
> source and wish to keep those modifications to yourself, you can use
> the free version.
>
> Since you'
Not at all Rick. Unless you plan to do major modifications to the
source and wish to keep those modifications to yourself, you can use
the free version.
Since you're running on CF8 now, you could just use rather than mess with a separate installation.
HTH,
Jon
On Dec 11, 2007, at 12:06 PM,
Why not upgrade to CF8 and use the RichText editor there?
-Original Message-
From: Rick Faircloth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Clarification about FCKEditor Use on websites...
Would it be correct to say that I have to buy the
Would it be correct to say that I have to buy the commericial
license (about $1500) to include FCKEditor in my websites for
users to edit content?
Rick
~|
Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities including Report Builder,
plu
> Now if only there were an alternate syntax for the
> CFIF..CFELSEIF..CFELSE tags that was XML compliant...
> Totally
> optional, but available to use if you need XML compliant
> CFML for some
> reason.
> Of course, that's remarkably off-topic, but the hope that
> that might
> sometime exist is a
> Tag attributes should be quoted in three situations:
>
> 1) always
> 2) always
> 3) always
>
> Imo even suggesting that it's possible to leave an attribute unquoted
> is reprehensible.
Really? I suspect you use unquoted attributes all the time, at least with
one tag. I know I do. For example, ra
Now if only there were an alternate syntax for the
CFIF..CFELSEIF..CFELSE tags that was XML compliant... Totally
optional, but available to use if you need XML compliant CFML for some
reason.
Of course, that's remarkably off-topic, but the hope that that might
sometime exist is another tangible r
> It still meets my definition (I'm hashing "x" to specify
> the variable within
> a string). However other might are argue that the
> following is "good":
>
Tag attributes should be quoted in three situations:
1) always
2) always
3) always
Imo even suggesting that it's possible to leave an a
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:01:29 -0400, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We've all said it a million times - don't use the hashes
> > inside a CF tag that
> > processes on its own.
>
> >
> >
>
> > But one thing I've always wondered is why. I know doing
> > this is wrong from
> > year
> We've all said it a million times - don't use the hashes
> inside a CF tag that
> processes on its own.
>
>
> But one thing I've always wondered is why. I know doing
> this is wrong from
> years of seeing people scream at developers who do it, but
> I never heard an
> explanation as to what
Try reading this article by the mighty Ben Forta. It is titled:
"To # or not to #"
http://www.defusion.com/articles/index.cfm?ArticleID=26
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Claude Schneegans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:24:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Basics
>>But one thing I've always wondered is why.
IMHO it's simply logic:
the purpose of # delimiter is to specify that an _expression_ inside should be evaluated
when it is not implied by context.
Inside a CFIF, the content cannot be something else, then # are just useless.
Furthermore, I would think
idence that there isn't in MX.
It's purely a stylistic issue as far as I can see, important to people, not
the machine. No different (but no less important to some) than indenting
"properly", for example.
Jim Davis
From: Steve Brownlee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday,
Dave Watts wrote:
> > Originally you had to do your cfifs this way back in version 2 land.
>
> Well, actually, I'm pretty sure that they weren't even needed then.
> However,
> no one had really figured out appropriate usage for them yet.
I think you're probably right. I vaguely remember there b
> We've all said it a million times - don't use the hashes inside a CF tag
> that processes on its own.
>
>
>
>
> But one thing I've always wondered is why. I know doing this is wrong
> from years of seeing people scream at developers who do it, but I never
> heard an explanation as to what prob
> Originally you had to do your cfifs this way back in version 2 land.
Well, actually, I'm pretty sure that they weren't even needed then. However,
no one had really figured out appropriate usage for them yet.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202
Steve Brownlee wrote:
> We've all said it a million times - don't use the hashes inside a CF
> tag that
> processes on its own.
>
>
>
>
> But one thing I've always wondered is why. I know doing this is wrong
> from
> years of seeing people scream at developers who do it, but I never
> heard
I have no idea why, as far as I know it don't actually cause any
problem, but I think it just look bad and makes the code more
difficult to read.
Andrew.
- Original Message -
From: Steve Brownlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 05:37:44 -0700
Subject: Basics Clari
We've all said it a million times - don't use the hashes inside a CF tag that
processes on its own.
But one thing I've always wondered is why. I know doing this is wrong from
years of seeing people scream at developers who do it, but I never heard an
explanation as to what problems this causes
Brian Simmons at CentraSoft.com is always quick to respond if you have
any concerns about their questions.
-j
-Original Message-
From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 8:46 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: clarification
Does anyone know what this
Oh crap.. I see it!
Yes = 1
True = 1
5 * 1 + 1 - 1
5 * 2 - 1
5 * 1 = 5
:-)
-Original Message-
From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 8:46 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: clarification
Does anyone know what this will output and why?
#5 * True
me in genenral.
:-D
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 11:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: clarification
On Saturday, Aug 9, 2003, at 17:59 US/Pacific, Michael T. Tangorre
wrote:
> Oh crap.. I see it!
The answe
Does anyone know what this will output and why?
#5 * True + "yes" - ("Y" & 'Es')#
Possible answers are:
0, 1, 5, Yes, An Error Will Be Shown
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
On Saturday, Aug 9, 2003, at 17:59 US/Pacific, Michael T. Tangorre
wrote:
> Oh crap.. I see it!
The answer's right but your logic is a little strange:
> 5 * 1 + 1 - 1
Since * is highest precedence than + or - this is equivalent to:
( 5 * 1 ) + 1 - 1
which is:
5 + 1 - 1
(which is 5)
Sean A
My inclination would be for an error
But, could it be 5?
- Calvin
- Original Message -
From: "Michael T. Tangorre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 8:45 PM
Subject: clarification
> Does anyone
These are ticketing applications as in puchasing tickets for the events at
these theatres. :-)
Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 12:52 PM
To: CF-Talk
We currently have three clients online that are in need of tick
On Wednesday 09 Jul 2003 23:08 pm, raedwards wrote:
> I'm looking at proposing a subscription to Devnet Professional. If i were
> to subscribe now, i assume i would be sent DRK3. Would i also get 2 and 1
> for my investment? I'd get Studio MX, development servers and alot of
> other tools, but w
I'm looking at proposing a subscription to Devnet Professional. If i were
to subscribe now, i assume i would be sent DRK3. Would i also get 2 and 1
for my investment? I'd get Studio MX, development servers and alot of
other tools, but would i get the earlier releases of the DRKs?
I've been e
2, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: CF clarification
> > > solution because it's tag-based, rather than script-based. So... what
> > > about XML? Is it not a "real" solution? Hmmm...
>
> not according to these ;-)
>
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?Xm
> > solution because it's tag-based, rather than script-based. So... what
> > about XML? Is it not a "real" solution? Hmmm...
not according to these ;-)
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?XmlSucks
http://xmlsucks.org/but_you_have_to_use_it_anyway/does-xml-suck.html
~~
On Friday 30 May 2003 16:54 pm, Brad Roberts wrote:
> That brings up a thought... I've heard the argument that CF isn't a "real"
> solution because it's tag-based, rather than script-based. So... what
> about XML? Is it not a "real" solution? Hmmm...
XML is a data storage container - nothing s
>What is cold fusion exactly?
MM's site can give you a better definition, but I always tell people that Cold Fusion
is another server side web
language just like ASP, PHP, JSP, etc. Granted, if you get granular it's not 'just
like' the others, but IMO it was
created to solve the same web proble
- Original Message -
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What is cold fusion exactly?
Some good FAQs:
http://www.cffaq.com/
http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq/
HTH,
Gyrus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
work: http://tengai.co.uk
play: http://norlonto.net
PGP key available
CTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 10:39 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: CF clarification
>
>
> What is cold fusion exactly? Why use it if you already have an XSLT
> processor and say Tomcat running on apache? What is it's advantages
What is cold fusion exactly? Why use it if you already have an XSLT
processor and say Tomcat running on apache? What is it's advantages over
just running Java or PHP on apache?
Thanks for your input!
/T
~|
Archives: http:/
Folks --
a colleague of mine asked me to help him with some changes to the way he was treating
his session variables, but in doing so, I've run into something of a misunderstanding
of how I *thought* session variables worked. Specifically, in the test code below, I
would expect that
1) when yo
Yes.
On Wednesday, Feb 5, 2003, at 16:55 US/Pacific, Stacy Young wrote:
> Is phase II out yet?
>
> -Stace
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:11 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Clar
Is phase II out yet?
-Stace
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:11 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
On Wednesday, Feb 5, 2003, at 09:48 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
> Sean, th
On Wednesday, Feb 5, 2003, at 09:48 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
> Sean, there appears to be different versions of the flashgateway
> bundled
> with different distributions. CFMX Enterprise has a flashgateway that
> seems to be different from the one that comes with CFMX for J2EE (Phase
> 1), an
et to true).
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 5:08 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Clarificatio
05, 2003 5:40 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
>
> Sean you ARE da man! Thanks dude.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:09 AM
> To: CF-
Sean you ARE da man! Thanks dude.
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:09 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
On Tuesday, Feb 4, 2003, at 15:21 US/Pacific, Stacy Young wrote:
>
On Tuesday, Feb 4, 2003, at 15:21 US/Pacific, Stacy Young wrote:
> "It will not enable the EJB or Servlet Adapters."
>
> So if we're not hitting EJB's directly we'd be ok? (we'd be using
> client
> classes)
Correct: you can call Java Beans and "plain ol' Java classes" and they
can, in turn, act
On Tuesday, Feb 4, 2003, at 15:13 US/Pacific, Stacy Young wrote:
> I'm curious, what's the difference, in respect to security, between
> accessing Java objects thru the gateway in this scenario as opposed to
> using the Remoting for Java gateway?
The default security policy for JRun's Flash gatewa
"It will not enable the EJB or Servlet Adapters."
So if we're not hitting EJB's directly we'd be ok? (we'd be using client
classes)
-Stace
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 5:08 PM
To: CF-T
Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 5:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:39 US/Pacific, Sean A Corfield wrote:
> On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:18 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
>> You
On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:39 US/Pacific, Sean A Corfield wrote:
> On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:18 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
>> You cannot have the CF Flash gateway and the Java Flash gateway
>> deployed in the same context.
> Actually you can. But I don't believe it is documented (and may
: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
I don't really think it is a correct assumption that a single Flash
movie wouldn't want to call both CF and Java based services. There are
plenty of reasons why someone would mix CFML and Java on the backend and
if Macromedia is right about RIAs
Ok, sorry I misunderstood.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 3:17 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject
uary, 2003 3:06 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
I don't really think it is a correct assumption that a single Flash
movie wouldn't want to call both CF and Java based services. There are
plenty of reasons why someone would mix CFML and Java on the
o be front-ended by Flash.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
888-408-0900 x901
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:55 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE:
> Actually you can. But I don't believe it is documented (and may not be
> within the terms of the license). However, assuming it doesn't violate
> the license agreement to do whatever is needed to enable this, I'll
> find out from the product team how you do it and report back.
>
See another one
trator
Fig Leaf Software
1400 16th St NW, # 220
Washington DC 20036
202.797.6570 (direct line)
http://www.figleaf.com
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 04 February, 2003 2:38 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Rem
On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 23:18 US/Pacific, Matt Liotta wrote:
> You cannot have the CF Flash gateway and the Java Flash gateway
> deployed
> in the same context.
Actually you can. But I don't believe it is documented (and may not be
within the terms of the license). However, assuming it doesn'
/
888-408-0900 x901
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:30 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
>
> technically, there is an xml entry (forgive me, I canno remem
ware
1400 16th St NW, # 220
Washington DC 20036
202.797.6570 (direct line)
http://www.figleaf.com
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 04 February, 2003 2:19 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
You cannot h
-Original Message-
> From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:39 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
>
> Would it be accurate to say that in order to use Flash Remoting for
both
>
> CFMX and
To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
>
>
> Would it be accurate to say that in order to use Flash Remoting for both
>
> CFMX and Java applications on the same WebLogic server we'd need CFMX
> for J2EE and Flash Remoting for Java? I know this ha
> Would it be accurate to say that in order to use Flash
> Remoting for both CFMX and Java applications on the
> same WebLogic server we'd need CFMX for J2EE and Flash
> Remoting for Java?
Yes, that's my understanding - if you want to use Flash Remoting within your
non-CFMX Java applications, I
ginal Message-
From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 04 February, 2003 12:39 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Clarification - CFMX for J2EE w/ Remoting
Would it be accurate to say that in order to use Flash Remoting for both
CFMX and Java applications on the same WebLogic server we&#
Would it be accurate to say that in order to use Flash Remoting for both
CFMX and Java applications on the same WebLogic server we'd need CFMX
for J2EE and Flash Remoting for Java? I know this has been covered
before...but I wasn't about to buy at that time and missed some of the
details. :-)
Ch
Barely... I just have not received anything since 7/2!
At 07:54 PM 7/11/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Yes Jim, we're alive. Are you? =)
>
>At 07:36 PM 7/11/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >Is this list alive?
>
>Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>http://www.web-rat.com/
>Team Macromedia Volunteer for Col
Yes Jim, we're alive. Are you? =)
At 07:36 PM 7/11/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Is this list alive?
Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.web-rat.com/
Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion
http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/
Moderator @ FlashCFM.com - http://www.f
Is this list alive?
__
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
That's pretty cool... I figured the toString() was hosing things up. Oh
well.
~Todd
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Dave Watts wrote:
> > >
> >
> > yes that should just bust. flavor should be either xml or
> > wddx. though maybe i'm worrying too much? maybe just dump
> > back the query?
>
> OK. Whe
> >
>
> yes that should just bust. flavor should be either xml or
> wddx. though maybe i'm worrying too much? maybe just dump
> back the query?
OK. When I tried it with flavor being "xml", it worked just fine. The
browser doesn't display it as an XML document simply because I'm fetching it
I think it's the that's destroying it. That
should be done by the person that's invoking the webservice if they want to
see what the packet looks like.
At 06:51 AM 7/3/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>lol... Dave did what I did... I picked a flavor. =)
>
>Anyway...
>
>http://webservices.tei.or.th/getQ
lol... Dave did what I did... I picked a flavor. =)
Anyway...
http://webservices.tei.or.th/getQuakeData.cfc?wsdl&method=fetchquakedata&weeks=2&flavor=xml
This returns XML ... slowly tho and I think there's something wrong with
the packet header or something - Even IE doesn't recognize it as a
> I got an error message, referencing the nonexistent "AQUAKESPACKAGE"
> argument I think. That's not reflected in the WSDL.
its not part of the wsdl, ie not an arguement.
>
yes that should just bust. flavor should be either xml or wddx. though maybe
i'm worrying too much? maybe just d
Same thing I got.
At 12:43 AM 7/3/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > still wondering if the xml flavored packets are being
> > returned correctly?
>
>I got an error message, referencing the nonexistent "AQUAKESPACKAGE"
>argument I think. That's not reflected in the WSDL. Here's the invocation
>code I use
> still wondering if the xml flavored packets are being
> returned correctly?
I got an error message, referencing the nonexistent "AQUAKESPACKAGE"
argument I think. That's not reflected in the WSDL. Here's the invocation
code I used:
http://webservices.tei.or.th/getQuakeData.cfc?wsdl";
> You can tell that information from reading the WSDL file; if I'm not
> mistaken, the method name is "fetchquakedata" and it expects two
arguments:
> "weeks", which is a double-precision number, and "flavor", which is a
> string.
still wondering if the xml flavored packets are being returned cor
> > what happens? well all that xml makes me cranky...so i
> > generally whack the monitor a few times to make it go
> > awayhttp://webservices.tei.or.th/getQuakeData.cfc?wsdl
>
> What's the actual method that's returning the XML and do I
> need to pass in something to satisfy the component?
What's the actual method that's returning the XML and do I need to pass in
something to satisfy the component?
At 05:34 AM 7/3/2002 +0700, you wrote:
>what happens? well all that xml makes me cranky...so i generally whack the
>monitor a few times to make it go
>awayhttp://webservices.tei.or.
what happens? well all that xml makes me cranky...so i generally whack the
monitor a few times to make it go
awayhttp://webservices.tei.or.th/getQuakeData.cfc?wsdl
there's a discussion in the "CF Component Development" forums
> Paul, when you browse that CFC (like:
> http://yourserver/so
Paul, when you browse that CFC (like:
http://yourserver/somedirectory/this.cfc?WSDL&method=someMethod) in
Internet explorer. What happens? Where's your webservice at? Can we peek?
~Todd
===
· From: Paul Hastings
· Subject: Re: Clarification needed -- We
> Is this the correct assumption? Would she even bother to make it a
> webservice at this point? Or, should she really be returning a structure
> / array / query, etc..?
well i can return a wddx packet fine but apparently either i'm blowing away
my xml creation or maybe there's something to thi
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:04 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Clarification needed -- WebServices (Part II)
>
> Interesting. Funny that the person that emailed me basically smacked
my
> hand and said passing the XML as a string is
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
