Re: [Modus-devs] Re: New Code Posted

[Sean A C. <se...@co...>]

On Thursday, Nov 14, 2002, at 14:36 US/Pacific, Jeremy Firsenbaum wrote:
> Well, I just confirmed this. The included UDFs are not available to=20
> custom tags.

Er, oops, yes... silly me...

> One of Nathan's concerns when discussing the UDF was approach was=20
> defining a namespace for Modus. I think this is a more powerful=20
> argument for the static=A0CFC library than custom tag access. Seems to=20=

> me that custom tag developers should be used to scope issues as these=20=

> were the first real way to do encapsulation with CF.

cfinvoke can be used to invoke any of those static methods but there's=20=

no script equivalent (since it requires an instance) so we're back to=20
server.modus.functionName() again...

> As for many applications not using the cfapplication tag, that's news=20=

> to me. The whole framework depends on the application name to allow=20
> various Modus apps to be run concurrently on the same server without=20=

> name conflicts.

I agree that requiring Application.cfm / cfapplication is no big deal.=20=

Even Fusebox MX requires Application.cfm! :)

"I have always wished that my computer would be
  as easy to use as my telephone.
  My wish has come true - I no longer know how to
  use my telephone."  -- Bjarne Stroustrup