On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Scott Stewart wrote:
>
> Phillip,
>
> One of the things that CFC's can do is encapsulate repetitive code, you can
> write a function one time and call it multiple times.
>
>
I personally like knowing what I actually send to a cfc. With an include and
the variables
I think that one of the best uses of CFC's (and UDFs and custom tags) is to
abstract or "hide" a lot of code behind simple function calls or custom
tags so you can make changes in one place and have of in effect globally. Or
if you abstract part of your code, like the database layer, you can make
> Remember that Singleton is a DESIGN pattern. The complexities we see
> in much of the published literature are based on Java's inability to
> cleanly implement a secure Singleton design because it doesn't have a
> global scope and any real sense of "application startup". Don't mix
> design and i
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Peter Boughton wrote:
> Though this one is not just the CF community - plenty of people all round
> don't really know what Singletons (and even design patterns in general)
> actually are.
Remember that Singleton is a DESIGN pattern. The complexities we see
in muc
Hi Nathan,
Yes, this bit:
>Or, are you just saying we throw the word around like candy at a parade and
>should stop before we hit someone in the eye?
Though this one is not just the CF community - plenty of people all round don't
really know what Singletons (and even design patterns in general)
From: Phillip Vector [mailto:vec...@mostdeadlygame.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 2:35 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: CFC's.. Why use them?
Thanks for the replies guys. I have currently the task of converting
over a straight forward web app to fusebox. The app already has allot
of repeat
Thanks for the replies guys. I have currently the task of converting
over a straight forward web app to fusebox. The app already has allot
of repeat code and this isn't something that is going to be easy at
all.
One thing I have going on is that I have LOTS of cfcs. I mean, LOTS of
them (over 100
Peter,
I understand the singleton pattern. It's lovely, on a cloudy day or sipping
some tea or whatever, but in CF, don't you think that implementing the true
singleton pattern is overkill and generally unnecessary? Consider our lack
of true constructors, the stateless nature of the web, and mult
Brad, I love the microwave analogy.
Phillip, CFCs as a fancy include tends to be the first step on your way to
really understanding components and objects. I've been with a few groups who
have gone (and taken me) through the course. The evolution is like this:
---
CFC as
>Just a quick thought: If, for example, you are building reusable,
>singleton components (sorry for the OO buzzwords, but it is descriptive
>terminology), then you can load those CFCs into Application scope and have
>them exist in memory only once but still be used across all requests in the
"like starting your microwave on fire to cook your supper over it"
That is a wonderfully expressive metaphor (and accurate to the example,
too!)
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them kn
I'd sure hate to write a SOAP webservice in a .cfm file.
Also, cfm files don't give you objects that can be passed around,
provide encapsulation of data, and support code re-use via inheritance
and method overriding. I mean, you can do anything you want in cfm
files, but there are some things
Gotcha. Thanks. :)
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Jason Fisher wrote:
>
> Just a quick thought: If, for example, you are building reusable,
> singleton components (sorry for the OO buzzwords, but it is descriptive
> terminology), then you can load those CFCs into Application scope and have
> th
Just a quick thought: If, for example, you are building reusable,
singleton components (sorry for the OO buzzwords, but it is descriptive
terminology), then you can load those CFCs into Application scope and have
them exist in memory only once but still be used across all requests in the
app.
14 matches
Mail list logo
