createComponent() / javaProxy() etc

G’day:
I think these two threads on my blog need more people’s input that just
Micha & I bickering (which is what it’s sinking to):


I contend createComponent() is the wrong name for the function, and
actually unnecessary. Details in article


I contend that - in addition to the above - javaProxy() and
webServiceProxy() are misnamed

I also contend that the Lucee Team need to involve the community before they
make decisions like this. It’s supposed to be an open source project,
after all.

Cheers.–
Adam

Like I said I’m fine with renaming them…, btw by following CFML they
should not be called createJavaProxy, they should be called javaProxyNew
(what a terrible name!) like arrayNew,structNew,entityNew… :slight_smile:

The process of the development of Lucee 5 was special because of the
implications with the Railo project.
All important features we have in Lucee 5 was defined as feature request
with The Railo Jira system or Railos user voice or both.
Only exception is createObject…

please have in mind that ALL the changes we did in the language with Lucee
5 was only about 5-10% of the work and the createObject functions are only
around 1-2 hours of work, by looking into this features you only
scratch the surface.
When you are asking what is Lucee 5 about, the the answer is the complete
architectual redoing of the engine. What was a extremely important step for
the future of Lucee.

ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don’t like the
name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.
If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it. If you think we
need to get the technical advisory board running, be my guest you can start
it. If you think we need a process in place for doing whatever … So every
suggestion for a improvement are welcome, but please have in mind that they
will not magically happening only because you suggest them, it always needs
someone to do it.
There are no sites here, I’m also only part of that community, maybe my
voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time
on the project than everybody else and because I’m knowing the project
better than everybody else and to make one thing very clear, I have not
seen a cent from LAS yet for my work (and Igal as well) and I don’t expect
to see one in the near future!
It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the hard
thing is to change that fact, that it was is open source is about!
So if you are asking for more open source that could be a good starting
point!

MichaAm Montag, 13. April 2015 schrieb Adam Cameron :

G’day:
I think these two threads on my blog need more people’s input that just
Micha & I bickering (which is what it’s sinking to):

http://blog.adamcameron.me/2015/04/lucee-5-beta-createcomponent.html
I contend createComponent() is the wrong name for the function, and
actually unnecessary. Details in article

http://blog.adamcameron.me/2015/04/lucee-5-beta-phpification-of-cfml.html
I contend that - in addition to the above - javaProxy() and
webServiceProxy() are misnamed

I also contend that the Lucee Team need to involve the community before they
make decisions like this. It’s supposed to be an open source project,
after all.

Cheers.


Adam


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,‘cvml’,‘lucee%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com’);>.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,‘cvml’,‘lucee@googlegroups.com’);>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/6962c695-46b7-456f-9820-df98c3de4e4b%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/6962c695-46b7-456f-9820-df98c3de4e4b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don’t like the
name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.

That’s not a very well-thought-through suggestion. You clearly thought it
was a good name, so it would be completely inappropriate for me to
unilaterally decide the function name needs changing, and then go change it
(pull req needing approval notwithstanding). What makes sense in
situations like this is to do exactly what has been done: discuss it.
Although as I suggested: discussing it before hand would have been more
sensible.

Not all issues need to be solved by hiding one’s head in code, Micha.

If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it.

Where I actually have the wherewithal to do so: I do.

However this is a specious suggestion in the given context as the updates
to the wiki we’re discussing is details of the new work you’ve done, and
(as discussed elsewhere), the community can’t simply magic-up documentation
for work you have done in private.

If you think we need to get the technical advisory board running, be my
guest you can start it.

This is also completely specious. I cannot do that, can I? Because I’m
not an Association Member, I have authority at all, and for a technical
advisory board to work it can’t just be some people sitting around going
“well it’d be better if it was done this way” if there’s no buy-in from the
people doing the implementation.

There are no sites here, I’m also only part of that community, maybe my
voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time
on the project than everybody else and because I’m knowing the project
better than everybody else

That’s not true at all.

and to make one thing very clear, I have not seen a cent from LAS yet for
my work (and Igal as well) and I don’t expect to see one in the near
future!

Well I feel bad for you in that regard, but that was your choice, I guess.
And is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I don’t get paid for any of the work I do for the CFML community either.
Which is, I think, pretty much how it works in a community.

It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the hard
thing is to change that fact,

No, it really isn’t. All it takes is for the appropriate person to get on
with it and do it.On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 00:51:31 UTC+1, Micha wrote:


Adam

between the lines

Micha

ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don’t like the
name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.

That’s not a very well-thought-through suggestion. You clearly thought it
was a good name,

i never said that

so it would be completely inappropriate for me to unilaterally decide the
function name needs changing, and then go change it (pull req needing
approval notwithstanding). What makes sense in situations like this is
to do exactly what has been done: discuss it. Although as I suggested:
discussing it before hand would have been more sensible.

everybody agreed (including me) that “createComponent” is a bad name, we
discussed a lot and i never sai that JavaProxy or Webservice proxy is a
good name, in the end the onyl thing we disagreed was the role of
createObject and the init function.
For most decision we raise a discussion in the mailing list and then in the
end domeone has to decide how we do it, but we always try to involve the
community

Not all issues need to be solved by hiding one’s head in code, Micha.

right, i did not know that

If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it.

Where I actually have the wherewithal to do so: I do.

you have a lot of knowlege to improbe a lot and you always can ask me

However this is a specious suggestion in the given context as the updates
to the wiki we’re discussing is details of the new work you’ve done, and
(as discussed elsewhere), the community can’t simply magic-up documentation
for work you have done in private.

So you have no clue about this new features? Of course you have, you
already have a lot more knowlege as it is documented in the wiki

If you think we need to get the technical advisory board running, be my
guest you can start it.

This is also completely specious. I cannot do that, can I? Because I’m
not an Association Member, I have authority at all, and for a technical
advisory board to work it can’t just be some people sitting around going
“well it’d be better if it was done this way” if there’s no buy-in from the
people doing the implementation.

never said you should not involve LAS with that :wink: Simply ask LAS if it is
ok that you start this and that you take the lead with it, you would get a
ok for sure, we simply would define some base rule for it …
So first step ask…

There are no sites here, I’m also only part of that community, maybe my
voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time
on the project than everybody else and because I’m knowing the project
better than everybody else

That’s not true at all.

What exactly is not true with that?

and to make one thing very clear, I have not seen a cent from LAS yet
for my work (and Igal as well) and I don’t expect to see one in the near
future!

Well I feel bad for you in that regard, but that was your choice, I guess.
And is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I just want to make clear that i don’t own you anything and that it is not
my job to do anything like you suggested multiple time.

I don’t get paid for any of the work I do for the CFML community either.
Which is, I think, pretty much how it works in a community.

right, but you dont spend 3-4 days a week only for that project

It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the hard
thing is to change that fact,

No, it really isn’t. All it takes is for the appropriate person to get on
with it and do it.

did you raise your hand for this?On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Adam Cameron <@Adam_Cameron> wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 00:51:31 UTC+1, Micha wrote:


Adam


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Thanks Andrew for taking the time.

What’s the point of the member companies? Isn’t it their role to organize
things like documentation? Sure, it is a community effort, with users like
me contributing, but it needs to be organized by Lucee and its members to
give it some credibility. If not, it will be endless “why don’t you do it”
threads.

Thanks,
JeanOn Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Dixon <@Andrew_Dixon> wrote:

Your not wrong Jean and I think what Micha is trying to say is he wants
people to step up and volunteer to take on these roles within the project.
Lucee is open source and the Lucee Association Switzerland (LAS) is just a
group of people willing to contribute some of their and/or companies time
and money to help move it along but realistically this group is extremely
small and part of the point Micha is trying to make is the community need
to step up more and contribute time and effort as well. For example, if you
wanted to take on the role you describe I’m sure LAS would be more than
happy for you to do that and give you the access required to do it, the
problem at the moment is very few people are stepping up.

Another example would be this ticket that Adam raised:

https://bitbucket.org/lucee/lucee/issue/280/typo-you-cannot-extend-the-final-component

It is a typo in the source code, so why didn’t Adam just fix it and submit
a pull request for it? He doesn’t need to know Java to fix this, he just
needed to search the source for the string, correct it and submit the pull
request, but he didn’t, he raised an issue ticket for it and Micha has
fixed it, but what a waste of Micha’s time.

As Adam said on another post today, people sometimes just need to think
more!!! :slight_smile:

Kind regards,

Andrew
about.me http://about.me/andrew_dixon
mso http://www.mso.net - Lucee http://lucee.org - Member

On 14 April 2015 at 10:23, Jean Moniatte <@Jean_Moniatte> wrote:

First I want to thank again Micha and all the Lucee guys. Without you I
would probably be doing php right now :slight_smile:

While I really hope that Lucee finds the place it deserves in the web dev
world, I do not think that it can happen without more leadership. Look at
the docs. For the last 3 years the answer has always been “if you are not
happy, just do it, it’s open source”. Then a few people toy with cool tools
for a few days, talk about great things and months later Lucee still does
not have an official documentation.

I hate to bitch, but we need someone with some kind of ownership in the
project to organize things around, with objectives, directions and a plan.
If there was a structure, plenty of people would be willing to participate.
It is not Micah’s job. It’s a project manager job, and people will follow
and help the right person as long as he has some authority with the project.

My 2 cents.
Jean

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Michael Offner <@Michael_Offner> wrote:

Like I said I’m fine with renaming them…, btw by following CFML they
should not be called createJavaProxy, they should be called javaProxyNew
(what a terrible name!) like arrayNew,structNew,entityNew… :slight_smile:

The process of the development of Lucee 5 was special because of the
implications with the Railo project.
All important features we have in Lucee 5 was defined as feature request
with The Railo Jira system or Railos user voice or both.
Only exception is createObject…

please have in mind that ALL the changes we did in the language with
Lucee 5 was only about 5-10% of the work and the createObject functions are
only around 1-2 hours of work, by looking into this features you only
scratch the surface.
When you are asking what is Lucee 5 about, the the answer is the
complete architectual redoing of the engine. What was a extremely
important step for the future of Lucee.

ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don’t like the
name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.
If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it. If you think we
need to get the technical advisory board running, be my guest you can start
it. If you think we need a process in place for doing whatever … So every
suggestion for a improvement are welcome, but please have in mind that they
will not magically happening only because you suggest them, it always needs
someone to do it.
There are no sites here, I’m also only part of that community, maybe my
voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time
on the project than everybody else and because I’m knowing the project
better than everybody else and to make one thing very clear, I have not
seen a cent from LAS yet for my work (and Igal as well) and I don’t expect
to see one in the near future!
It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the
hard thing is to change that fact, that it was is open source is about!
So if you are asking for more open source that could be a good starting
point!

Micha

Am Montag, 13. April 2015 schrieb Adam Cameron :

G’day:
I think these two threads on my blog need more people’s input that just
Micha & I bickering (which is what it’s sinking to):

http://blog.adamcameron.me/2015/04/lucee-5-beta-createcomponent.html
I contend createComponent() is the wrong name for the function, and
actually unnecessary. Details in article

http://blog.adamcameron.me/2015/04/lucee-5-beta-phpification-of-cfml.html
I contend that - in addition to the above - javaProxy() and
webServiceProxy() are misnamed

I also contend that the Lucee Team need to involve the community
before they make decisions like this. It’s supposed to be an open source
project, after all.

Cheers.


Adam


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/6962c695-46b7-456f-9820-df98c3de4e4b%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/6962c695-46b7-456f-9820-df98c3de4e4b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzamBY1uLn-VAQOwmE%2BJ34wP0mdK9tKGD3aWtkySpr0rA%40mail.gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzamBY1uLn-VAQOwmE%2BJ34wP0mdK9tKGD3aWtkySpr0rA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG-7QUs8zsqk5vbY0wSRjKDaDEjK3VhNYSwFFFxu8vCR94TM2Q%40mail.gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG-7QUs8zsqk5vbY0wSRjKDaDEjK3VhNYSwFFFxu8vCR94TM2Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG1WijWdaBMq%3DwMuF9y3YQpSKqKUZTV1EnNZxTFWZC%2BZJB9v-w%40mail.gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG1WijWdaBMq%3DwMuF9y3YQpSKqKUZTV1EnNZxTFWZC%2BZJB9v-w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Your not wrong Jean and I think what Micha is trying to say is he wants
people to step up and volunteer to take on these roles within the project.
Lucee is open source and the Lucee Association Switzerland (LAS) is just a
group of people willing to contribute some of their and/or companies time
and money to help move it along but realistically this group is extremely
small and part of the point Micha is trying to make is the community need
to step up more and contribute time and effort as well. For example, if you
wanted to take on the role you describe I’m sure LAS would be more than
happy for you to do that and give you the access required to do it, the
problem at the moment is very few people are stepping up.

Another example would be this ticket that Adam raised:

https://bitbucket.org/lucee/lucee/issue/280/typo-you-cannot-extend-the-final-component

It is a typo in the source code, so why didn’t Adam just fix it and submit
a pull request for it? He doesn’t need to know Java to fix this, he just
needed to search the source for the string, correct it and submit the pull
request, but he didn’t, he raised an issue ticket for it and Micha has
fixed it, but what a waste of Micha’s time.

As Adam said on another post today, people sometimes just need to think
more!!! :slight_smile:

Kind regards,

Andrew
about.me http://about.me/andrew_dixon
mso http://www.mso.net - Lucee http://lucee.org - MemberOn 14 April 2015 at 10:23, Jean Moniatte <@Jean_Moniatte> wrote:

First I want to thank again Micha and all the Lucee guys. Without you I
would probably be doing php right now :slight_smile:

While I really hope that Lucee finds the place it deserves in the web dev
world, I do not think that it can happen without more leadership. Look at
the docs. For the last 3 years the answer has always been “if you are not
happy, just do it, it’s open source”. Then a few people toy with cool tools
for a few days, talk about great things and months later Lucee still does
not have an official documentation.

I hate to bitch, but we need someone with some kind of ownership in the
project to organize things around, with objectives, directions and a plan.
If there was a structure, plenty of people would be willing to participate.
It is not Micah’s job. It’s a project manager job, and people will follow
and help the right person as long as he has some authority with the project.

My 2 cents.
Jean

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Michael Offner <@Michael_Offner> wrote:

Like I said I’m fine with renaming them…, btw by following CFML they
should not be called createJavaProxy, they should be called javaProxyNew
(what a terrible name!) like arrayNew,structNew,entityNew… :slight_smile:

The process of the development of Lucee 5 was special because of the
implications with the Railo project.
All important features we have in Lucee 5 was defined as feature request
with The Railo Jira system or Railos user voice or both.
Only exception is createObject…

please have in mind that ALL the changes we did in the language with
Lucee 5 was only about 5-10% of the work and the createObject functions are
only around 1-2 hours of work, by looking into this features you only
scratch the surface.
When you are asking what is Lucee 5 about, the the answer is the complete
architectual redoing of the engine. What was a extremely important step for
the future of Lucee.

ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don’t like the
name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.
If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it. If you think we
need to get the technical advisory board running, be my guest you can start
it. If you think we need a process in place for doing whatever … So every
suggestion for a improvement are welcome, but please have in mind that they
will not magically happening only because you suggest them, it always needs
someone to do it.
There are no sites here, I’m also only part of that community, maybe my
voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time
on the project than everybody else and because I’m knowing the project
better than everybody else and to make one thing very clear, I have not
seen a cent from LAS yet for my work (and Igal as well) and I don’t expect
to see one in the near future!
It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the hard
thing is to change that fact, that it was is open source is about!
So if you are asking for more open source that could be a good starting
point!

Micha

Am Montag, 13. April 2015 schrieb Adam Cameron :

G’day:
I think these two threads on my blog need more people’s input that just
Micha & I bickering (which is what it’s sinking to):

http://blog.adamcameron.me/2015/04/lucee-5-beta-createcomponent.html
I contend createComponent() is the wrong name for the function, and
actually unnecessary. Details in article

http://blog.adamcameron.me/2015/04/lucee-5-beta-phpification-of-cfml.html
I contend that - in addition to the above - javaProxy() and
webServiceProxy() are misnamed

I also contend that the Lucee Team need to involve the community
before they make decisions like this. It’s supposed to be an open source
project, after all.

Cheers.


Adam


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/6962c695-46b7-456f-9820-df98c3de4e4b%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/6962c695-46b7-456f-9820-df98c3de4e4b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzamBY1uLn-VAQOwmE%2BJ34wP0mdK9tKGD3aWtkySpr0rA%40mail.gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzamBY1uLn-VAQOwmE%2BJ34wP0mdK9tKGD3aWtkySpr0rA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG-7QUs8zsqk5vbY0wSRjKDaDEjK3VhNYSwFFFxu8vCR94TM2Q%40mail.gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG-7QUs8zsqk5vbY0wSRjKDaDEjK3VhNYSwFFFxu8vCR94TM2Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Another example would be this ticket that Adam raised:

https://bitbucket.org/lucee/lucee/issue/280/typo-you-cannot-extend-the-final-component

It is a typo in the source code, so why didn’t Adam just fix it and submit
a pull request for it? He doesn’t need to know Java to fix this, he just
needed to search the source for the string, correct it and submit the pull
request, but he didn’t, he raised an issue ticket for it and Micha has
fixed it, but what a waste of Micha’s time.

In this specific instance whilst I was trying to test Lucee (my job here:
tester) I came across a trivial bug. I do not have the source code, do not
want the source code, don’t know what the project guidelines are as far
as testing, don’t know how to do a build to test any fix I make (I would
never monkey with someone else’s code without testing it), so basically
cannot run the code.

What I can do, Andrew, is if I spot a trivial issue whilst I’m already
busy doing something else is I can raise the issue (which is, in fact,
what I have been asked to do in the past), so at least it’s kept track of.
So that’s what I did. And, note, I raised it as trivial. And I in no way
indicated that the issue was an important one, or I specifically wanted it
fixed.

If Micha then wasted his time fixing it, he’s not managing his time
properly: there are more important things for him to be getting on with.

As Adam said on another post today, people sometimes just need to think
more!!! :slight_smile:

Well… yes Andrew. Indeed.

Do you know what I’m not doing whilst I’m needing to justify my actions in
this sort of thread? Testing Lucee.On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 11:50:01 UTC+1, Andrew Dixon wrote:


Adam

First I want to thank again Micha and all the Lucee guys. Without you I
would probably be doing php right now :slight_smile:

While I really hope that Lucee finds the place it deserves in the web dev
world, I do not think that it can happen without more leadership. Look at
the docs. For the last 3 years the answer has always been “if you are not
happy, just do it, it’s open source”. Then a few people toy with cool tools
for a few days, talk about great things and months later Lucee still does
not have an official documentation.

I hate to bitch, but we need someone with some kind of ownership in the
project to organize things around, with objectives, directions and a plan.
If there was a structure, plenty of people would be willing to participate.
It is not Micah’s job. It’s a project manager job, and people will follow
and help the right person as long as he has some authority with the project.

My 2 cents.
JeanOn Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Michael Offner <@Michael_Offner> wrote:

Like I said I’m fine with renaming them…, btw by following CFML they
should not be called createJavaProxy, they should be called javaProxyNew
(what a terrible name!) like arrayNew,structNew,entityNew… :slight_smile:

The process of the development of Lucee 5 was special because of the
implications with the Railo project.
All important features we have in Lucee 5 was defined as feature request
with The Railo Jira system or Railos user voice or both.
Only exception is createObject…

please have in mind that ALL the changes we did in the language with Lucee
5 was only about 5-10% of the work and the createObject functions are only
around 1-2 hours of work, by looking into this features you only
scratch the surface.
When you are asking what is Lucee 5 about, the the answer is the complete
architectual redoing of the engine. What was a extremely important step for
the future of Lucee.

ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don’t like the
name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.
If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it. If you think we
need to get the technical advisory board running, be my guest you can start
it. If you think we need a process in place for doing whatever … So every
suggestion for a improvement are welcome, but please have in mind that they
will not magically happening only because you suggest them, it always needs
someone to do it.
There are no sites here, I’m also only part of that community, maybe my
voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time
on the project than everybody else and because I’m knowing the project
better than everybody else and to make one thing very clear, I have not
seen a cent from LAS yet for my work (and Igal as well) and I don’t expect
to see one in the near future!
It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the hard
thing is to change that fact, that it was is open source is about!
So if you are asking for more open source that could be a good starting
point!

Micha

Am Montag, 13. April 2015 schrieb Adam Cameron :

G’day:
I think these two threads on my blog need more people’s input that just
Micha & I bickering (which is what it’s sinking to):

http://blog.adamcameron.me/2015/04/lucee-5-beta-createcomponent.html
I contend createComponent() is the wrong name for the function, and
actually unnecessary. Details in article

http://blog.adamcameron.me/2015/04/lucee-5-beta-phpification-of-cfml.html
I contend that - in addition to the above - javaProxy() and
webServiceProxy() are misnamed

I also contend that the Lucee Team need to involve the community before they
make decisions like this. It’s supposed to be an open source project,
after all.

Cheers.


Adam


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/6962c695-46b7-456f-9820-df98c3de4e4b%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/6962c695-46b7-456f-9820-df98c3de4e4b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzamBY1uLn-VAQOwmE%2BJ34wP0mdK9tKGD3aWtkySpr0rA%40mail.gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzamBY1uLn-VAQOwmE%2BJ34wP0mdK9tKGD3aWtkySpr0rA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

For dynamic component names, ObjectNew or initComponent.

For Java, I’d prefer no more complexity than we get with new Cfc(args)

  • in the Railo days this idea was floated:

    new java:ClassName

And I’d still like something to that effect, with of course the ability
to add (args) and automatically call the matching constructor.

I was just reading through the post and as I was reading I pretty much had
come up with the same list as Alex before I saw his, so my vote is for
these as they make most sense to me and clearly (from my point of view)
explain what they are doing. No idea what the word “proxy” is meant to mean
in the context of these function calls. To me you are not proxying
anything, you are creating a object of a class (Java) or a web service
(SOAP). If you therefore want to be really clear you could use
webServiceObjectNew() for the web service one, but I’m still not sure why
you can’t have just one function, objectNew(), and specify the type in
that, like you do with createObject, but I guess the upcoming blog post
will explain this.

Kind regards,

Andrew
about.me http://about.me/andrew_dixon
mso http://www.mso.net - Lucee http://lucee.org - MemberOn 15 April 2015 at 16:00, Alex Skinner <@Alex_Skinner> wrote:

I think

objectNew()
javaObjectNew()
webServiceNew()

The whole proxy thing to me is over detail with regard to the
implementation that is frankly of little interest to the person calling

A

On 15 April 2015 at 15:48, Julian Halliwell <@Julian_Halliwell> wrote:

I always use New with non-persistent components (which always have an
init method returning the instance), EntityNew() with ORM entities and
CreateObject() with java classes.

“New” feels right to me, so I’d vote for:

ObjectNew
JavaNew
(Don’t do much with web services. WebserviceClientNew sounds clearer
to me, but WebserviceProxyNew may be more accurate.)

Julian
http://cfsimplicity.com/

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Micha wrote:

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAC_5Vopx%2B12R32xQ-iifRkjxfgN65C_dMs3o8-5acGZDjS75Gw%40mail.gmail.com
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Alex Skinner
Managing Director

Pixl8 Interactive, 3 Tun Yard, Peardon Street, London
SW8 3HT, United Kingdom

T: +44 [0] 845 260 0726• W: www.pixl8.co.uk• E: info@pixl8.co.uk

Follow us on: Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pixl8 Twitter
http://www.twitter.com/pixl8 LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pixl8

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED - This e-mail and any attachment is intended
solely for the addressee, is strictly confidential and may also be subject
to legal, professional or other privilege or may be protected by work
product immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the addressee please
do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any
attachments. Instead, please email it back to the sender and then
immediately permanently delete it. Pixl8 Interactive Ltd Registered in
England. Registered number: 04336501. Registered office: 8 Spur Road,
Cosham, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO6 3EB


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAFrbJ5WT%2B5DuE_ahnRPfO9DnX2J2kxjUNfyKFwKnaeBMMFyToQ%40mail.gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAFrbJ5WT%2B5DuE_ahnRPfO9DnX2J2kxjUNfyKFwKnaeBMMFyToQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Since we’re talking about objects, why not implement what you’re talking
about in an object-oriented manner instead of BIFs?

/* org.lucee.cfml.Object */
component {

public function init(required string clazz, any constructorArgs=[], 

string initMethod="", string package="") {
if (len(initMethod)) {
return createObject(“component”, clazz)initMethod;
} else {
return new “#clazz#”(argumentCollection=constructorArgs);
}
}

}

/* org.lucee.cfml.JavaObject */
component {

public function init(required string clazz, array constructorArgs=[], 

array classPath=) {
var obj = arraylen(classPath) ? createObject(“java”, clazz,
classPath)
: createObject(“java”, clazz)
;
var args = constructorArgs;
switch(arrayLen(constructorArgs)) {
case 0: obj = obj.init(); break;
case 1: obj = obj.init(args[1]); break;
case 2: obj = obj.init(args[1],args[2]); break;
case 3: obj = obj.init(args[1],args[2],args[3]); break;
case 4: obj = obj.init(args[1],args[2],args[3],args[4]); break;
// case N: …ad nauseum…

        default:
            var _args = [];
            for (i=1; i <= arraylen(args); i++)
                _args.append("args[#i#]");
            evaluate("obj = obj.init(#arrayToList(_args,",")#)");
        break;
    }


    return obj;
}

}

/* ditto for WebServiceObject */

/* index.cfm */

sb = new JavaObject(“java.lang.StringBuilder”, [“initial string”]);
sb.append(", now appended!");
str = sb.toString();

componentName = “my.Component”;
dynamicComponent = new Object(componentName);
dynamicComponent = new Object(componentName, {named:“args”, work:“here”}
);
dynamicComponent = new Object(componentName, [“use”,“custom”,
“constructor”], “__constructor”);

websvc = new WebServiceObject(…);
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 7:56:40 AM UTC-5, Micha wrote:

coming back to the topic, sorry for going off like this …

CreateComponent
I agree that is a bad name, it was the shorthand for
createObject(“component”, but it is not very well chosen.
CreateObject is for sure a very good name, but the implementation has some
flaws i will explain in detail in an upcoming blog post, only this extend
that function is not really an option without breaking backward
compatibility.

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient

What do you think?

Micha

coming back to the topic, sorry for going off like this …

CreateComponent
I agree that is a bad name, it was the shorthand for
createObject(“component”, but it is not very well chosen.
CreateObject is for sure a very good name, but the implementation has some
flaws i will explain in detail in an upcoming blog post, only this extend
that function is not really an option without breaking backward
compatibility.

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient

What do you think?

MichaOn Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Michael Offner <@Michael_Offner> wrote:

between the lines

Micha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Adam Cameron <@Adam_Cameron> wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 00:51:31 UTC+1, Micha wrote:

ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don’t like the
name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.

That’s not a very well-thought-through suggestion. You clearly thought it
was a good name,

i never said that

so it would be completely inappropriate for me to unilaterally decide the
function name needs changing, and then go change it (pull req needing
approval notwithstanding). What makes sense in situations like this is
to do exactly what has been done: discuss it. Although as I suggested:
discussing it before hand would have been more sensible.

everybody agreed (including me) that “createComponent” is a bad name, we
discussed a lot and i never sai that JavaProxy or Webservice proxy is a
good name, in the end the onyl thing we disagreed was the role of
createObject and the init function.
For most decision we raise a discussion in the mailing list and then in
the end domeone has to decide how we do it, but we always try to involve
the community

Not all issues need to be solved by hiding one’s head in code, Micha.

right, i did not know that

If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it.

Where I actually have the wherewithal to do so: I do.

you have a lot of knowlege to improbe a lot and you always can ask me

However this is a specious suggestion in the given context as the updates
to the wiki we’re discussing is details of the new work you’ve done, and
(as discussed elsewhere), the community can’t simply magic-up documentation
for work you have done in private.

So you have no clue about this new features? Of course you have, you
already have a lot more knowlege as it is documented in the wiki

If you think we need to get the technical advisory board running, be my
guest you can start it.

This is also completely specious. I cannot do that, can I? Because I’m
not an Association Member, I have authority at all, and for a technical
advisory board to work it can’t just be some people sitting around going
“well it’d be better if it was done this way” if there’s no buy-in from the
people doing the implementation.

never said you should not involve LAS with that :wink: Simply ask LAS if it
is ok that you start this and that you take the lead with it, you would get
a ok for sure, we simply would define some base rule for it …
So first step ask…

There are no sites here, I’m also only part of that community, maybe my
voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time
on the project than everybody else and because I’m knowing the project
better than everybody else

That’s not true at all.

What exactly is not true with that?

and to make one thing very clear, I have not seen a cent from LAS yet
for my work (and Igal as well) and I don’t expect to see one in the near
future!

Well I feel bad for you in that regard, but that was your choice, I
guess. And is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I just want to make clear that i don’t own you anything and that it is not
my job to do anything like you suggested multiple time.

I don’t get paid for any of the work I do for the CFML community either.
Which is, I think, pretty much how it works in a community.

right, but you dont spend 3-4 days a week only for that project

It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the
hard thing is to change that fact,

No, it really isn’t. All it takes is for the appropriate person to get on
with it and do it.

did you raise your hand for this?


Adam


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

I always use New with non-persistent components (which always have an
init method returning the instance), EntityNew() with ORM entities and
CreateObject() with java classes.

“New” feels right to me, so I’d vote for:

ObjectNew
JavaNew
(Don’t do much with web services. WebserviceClientNew sounds clearer
to me, but WebserviceProxyNew may be more accurate.)

Julian
http://cfsimplicity.com/On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Micha wrote:

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient
  • I have mixed feelings on automatically calling the init() method. Most
    of my components have init() methods but they don’t always return an
    instance of the component.*
    That is not a problem when “init” has no return type at all.
    only the following is a problem for that case
    function init(){
    return “Susi”;
    }
    So only if you explicitly return something else
    We did this btw for compatibility to ACF, but only for the CFML dialect.On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Andrew Penhorwood <@Andrew_Penhorwood> wrote:

I always use createObject() when using cfc’s. My preference would be
createInstance(). That does the best job of describing what is happening.
We are creating an instance of a component. I have mixed feelings on
automatically calling the init() method. Most of my components have init()
methods but they don’t always return an instance of the component. Not a
show stopper but code will need to be reviewed before moving to newer
versions of Lucee.

Andrew Penhorwood

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:56:40 AM UTC-4, Micha wrote:

coming back to the topic, sorry for going off like this …

CreateComponent
I agree that is a bad name, it was the shorthand for
createObject(“component”, but it is not very well chosen.
CreateObject is for sure a very good name, but the implementation has
some flaws i will explain in detail in an upcoming blog post, only this
extend that function is not really an option without breaking backward
compatibility.

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient

What do you think?

Micha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Michael Offner mic...@lucee.org wrote:

between the lines

Micha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Adam Cameron camero...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 00:51:31 UTC+1, Micha wrote:

ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don’t like
the name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the
name.

That’s not a very well-thought-through suggestion. You clearly thought
it was a good name,

i never said that

so it would be completely inappropriate for me to unilaterally decide
the function name needs changing, and then go change it (pull req needing
approval notwithstanding). What makes sense in situations like this
is to do exactly what has been done: discuss it. Although as I suggested:
discussing it before hand would have been more sensible.

everybody agreed (including me) that “createComponent” is a bad name, we
discussed a lot and i never sai that JavaProxy or Webservice proxy is a
good name, in the end the onyl thing we disagreed was the role of
createObject and the init function.
For most decision we raise a discussion in the mailing list and then in
the end domeone has to decide how we do it, but we always try to involve
the community

Not all issues need to be solved by hiding one’s head in code, Micha.

right, i did not know that

If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it.

Where I actually have the wherewithal to do so: I do.

you have a lot of knowlege to improbe a lot and you always can ask me

However this is a specious suggestion in the given context as the
updates to the wiki we’re discussing is details of the new work you’ve
done, and (as discussed elsewhere), the community can’t simply magic-up
documentation for work you have done in private.

So you have no clue about this new features? Of course you have, you
already have a lot more knowlege as it is documented in the wiki

If you think we need to get the technical advisory board running, be
my guest you can start it.

This is also completely specious. I cannot do that, can I? Because
I’m not an Association Member, I have authority at all, and for a technical
advisory board to work it can’t just be some people sitting around going
“well it’d be better if it was done this way” if there’s no buy-in from the
people doing the implementation.

never said you should not involve LAS with that :wink: Simply ask LAS if it
is ok that you start this and that you take the lead with it, you would get
a ok for sure, we simply would define some base rule for it …
So first step ask…

There are no sites here, I’m also only part of that community, maybe
my voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more
time on the project than everybody else and because I’m knowing the
project better than everybody else

That’s not true at all.

What exactly is not true with that?

and to make one thing very clear, I have not seen a cent from LAS yet
for my work (and Igal as well) and I don’t expect to see one in the near
future!

Well I feel bad for you in that regard, but that was your choice, I
guess. And is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I just want to make clear that i don’t own you anything and that it is
not my job to do anything like you suggested multiple time.

I don’t get paid for any of the work I do for the CFML community
either. Which is, I think, pretty much how it works in a community.

right, but you dont spend 3-4 days a week only for that project

It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the
hard thing is to change that fact,

No, it really isn’t. All it takes is for the appropriate person to get
on with it and do it.

did you raise your hand for this?


Adam


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/586a6fa0-2dc7-4923-92eb-e017da837985%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/586a6fa0-2dc7-4923-92eb-e017da837985%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

If we’re going to be creating new functions, maybe standardizing some conventions on function naming would be in order. Looking at the current function list for CMFL (http://www.luceedocs.org/functions), the functions use many different conventions:

Verb prefix:
verb[type]Noun() - i.e. createODBCDate() or createObject()

Noun prefix with verb appendix:
nounVerb() - e.g. fileOpen()

Transformers:
typeDescriptorNewType - e.g. arrayToList()

Verb only:
verb() - i.e. encrypt() or duplicate()

Verb Descriptor and Type:
verbForType() - e.g. encodeForXML()

Noun prefix with adjective appendix (and optional type):
noun[type]Adjective() - e.g. arrayNew();

There are more, of course, and Alex’s recommendations would be the noun[type]Adjective(), which makes total sense, but doesn’t match the existing or verbType() or verbTypeNoun() conventions uses to create complex objects. Only simple or native containers currently use noun[type]Adjective() - arrayNew(), structNew(), queryNew().

I would be in favor of moving to that type of syntax instead of a verbType() syntax which tends to be more verbose, but I’d like to see those conventions applied consistently as the language evolves - otherwise we end up like PHP where the function name conventions are all over the map and I never know if the “needle” comes before the “haystack” when searching or evaluating strings and objects.

Jon

I think

objectNew()
javaObjectNew()
webServiceNew()

The whole proxy thing to me is over detail with regard to the implementation that is frankly of little interest to the person calling

A

I always use New with non-persistent components (which always have an
init method returning the instance), EntityNew() with ORM entities and
CreateObject() with java classes.

“New” feels right to me, so I’d vote for:

ObjectNew
JavaNew
(Don’t do much with web services. WebserviceClientNew sounds clearer
to me, but WebserviceProxyNew may be more accurate.)

Julian
http://cfsimplicity.com/On April 15, 2015 at 11:00:31 AM, Alex Skinner (@Alex_Skinner) wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 15:48, Julian Halliwell <@Julian_Halliwell> wrote:

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Micha wrote:

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAC_5Vopx%2B12R32xQ-iifRkjxfgN65C_dMs3o8-5acGZDjS75Gw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Alex Skinner
Managing Director

Pixl8 Interactive, 3 Tun Yard, Peardon Street, London
SW8 3HT, United Kingdom

T: +44 [0] 845 260 0726• W: www.pixl8.co.uk• E: info@pixl8.co.uk

Follow us on: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED - This e-mail and any attachment is intended solely for the addressee, is strictly confidential and may also be subject to legal, professional or other privilege or may be protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the addressee please do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any attachments. Instead, please email it back to the sender and then immediately permanently delete it. Pixl8 Interactive Ltd Registered in England. Registered number: 04336501. Registered office: 8 Spur Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO6 3EB


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAFrbJ5WT%2B5DuE_ahnRPfO9DnX2J2kxjUNfyKFwKnaeBMMFyToQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

I think

objectNew()
javaObjectNew()
webServiceNew()

The whole proxy thing to me is over detail with regard to the
implementation that is frankly of little interest to the person calling

AOn 15 April 2015 at 15:48, Julian Halliwell <@Julian_Halliwell> wrote:

I always use New with non-persistent components (which always have an
init method returning the instance), EntityNew() with ORM entities and
CreateObject() with java classes.

“New” feels right to me, so I’d vote for:

ObjectNew
JavaNew
(Don’t do much with web services. WebserviceClientNew sounds clearer
to me, but WebserviceProxyNew may be more accurate.)

Julian
http://cfsimplicity.com/

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Micha wrote:

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAC_5Vopx%2B12R32xQ-iifRkjxfgN65C_dMs3o8-5acGZDjS75Gw%40mail.gmail.com
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Alex Skinner
Managing Director

Pixl8 Interactive, 3 Tun Yard, Peardon Street, London
SW8 3HT, United Kingdom

T: +44 [0] 845 260 0726* W: www.pixl8.co.uk* E: info@pixl8.co.uk

Follow us on: Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pixl8 Twitter
http://www.twitter.com/pixl8 LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pixl8

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED - This e-mail and any attachment is intended
solely for the addressee, is strictly confidential and may also be subject
to legal, professional or other privilege or may be protected by work
product immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the addressee please
do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any
attachments. Instead, please email it back to the sender and then
immediately permanently delete it. Pixl8 Interactive Ltd Registered in
England. Registered number: 04336501. Registered office: 8 Spur Road,
Cosham, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO6 3EB

I always use createObject() when using cfc’s. My preference would be
createInstance(). That does the best job of describing what is happening.
We are creating an instance of a component. I have mixed feelings on
automatically calling the init() method. Most of my components have init()
methods but they don’t always return an instance of the component. Not a
show stopper but code will need to be reviewed before moving to newer
versions of Lucee.

Andrew PenhorwoodOn Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:56:40 AM UTC-4, Micha wrote:

coming back to the topic, sorry for going off like this …

CreateComponent
I agree that is a bad name, it was the shorthand for
createObject(“component”, but it is not very well chosen.
CreateObject is for sure a very good name, but the implementation has some
flaws i will explain in detail in an upcoming blog post, only this extend
that function is not really an option without breaking backward
compatibility.

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient

What do you think?

Micha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Michael Offner <mic...@lucee.org <javascript:>> wrote:

between the lines

Micha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Adam Cameron <camero...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 00:51:31 UTC+1, Micha wrote:

ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don’t like the
name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.

That’s not a very well-thought-through suggestion. You clearly thought
it was a good name,

i never said that

so it would be completely inappropriate for me to unilaterally decide
the function name needs changing, and then go change it (pull req needing
approval notwithstanding). What makes sense in situations like this
is to do exactly what has been done: discuss it. Although as I suggested:
discussing it before hand would have been more sensible.

everybody agreed (including me) that “createComponent” is a bad name, we
discussed a lot and i never sai that JavaProxy or Webservice proxy is a
good name, in the end the onyl thing we disagreed was the role of
createObject and the init function.
For most decision we raise a discussion in the mailing list and then in
the end domeone has to decide how we do it, but we always try to involve
the community

Not all issues need to be solved by hiding one’s head in code, Micha.

right, i did not know that

If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it.

Where I actually have the wherewithal to do so: I do.

you have a lot of knowlege to improbe a lot and you always can ask me

However this is a specious suggestion in the given context as the
updates to the wiki we’re discussing is details of the new work you’ve
done, and (as discussed elsewhere), the community can’t simply magic-up
documentation for work you have done in private.

So you have no clue about this new features? Of course you have, you
already have a lot more knowlege as it is documented in the wiki

If you think we need to get the technical advisory board running, be my
guest you can start it.

This is also completely specious. I cannot do that, can I? Because
I’m not an Association Member, I have authority at all, and for a technical
advisory board to work it can’t just be some people sitting around going
“well it’d be better if it was done this way” if there’s no buy-in from the
people doing the implementation.

never said you should not involve LAS with that :wink: Simply ask LAS if it
is ok that you start this and that you take the lead with it, you would get
a ok for sure, we simply would define some base rule for it …
So first step ask…

There are no sites here, I’m also only part of that community, maybe my
voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time
on the project than everybody else and because I’m knowing the project
better than everybody else

That’s not true at all.

What exactly is not true with that?

and to make one thing very clear, I have not seen a cent from LAS yet
for my work (and Igal as well) and I don’t expect to see one in the near
future!

Well I feel bad for you in that regard, but that was your choice, I
guess. And is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I just want to make clear that i don’t own you anything and that it is
not my job to do anything like you suggested multiple time.

I don’t get paid for any of the work I do for the CFML community either.
Which is, I think, pretty much how it works in a community.

right, but you dont spend 3-4 days a week only for that project

It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the
hard thing is to change that fact,

No, it really isn’t. All it takes is for the appropriate person to get
on with it and do it.

did you raise your hand for this?


Adam


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com
<javascript:>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

“that is frankly of little interest to the person calling”
Ii see a lot of wrong doing in that aspect, people use that wrong what is
produing problems and also a lot of overhead.
Because of that I had the impression that a little bit more clarification
would not hurt.On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Alex Skinner <@Alex_Skinner> wrote:

I think

objectNew()
javaObjectNew()
webServiceNew()

The whole proxy thing to me is over detail with regard to the
implementation that is frankly of little interest to the person calling

A

On 15 April 2015 at 15:48, Julian Halliwell <@Julian_Halliwell> wrote:

I always use New with non-persistent components (which always have an
init method returning the instance), EntityNew() with ORM entities and
CreateObject() with java classes.

“New” feels right to me, so I’d vote for:

ObjectNew
JavaNew
(Don’t do much with web services. WebserviceClientNew sounds clearer
to me, but WebserviceProxyNew may be more accurate.)

Julian
http://cfsimplicity.com/

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, Micha wrote:

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAC_5Vopx%2B12R32xQ-iifRkjxfgN65C_dMs3o8-5acGZDjS75Gw%40mail.gmail.com
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Alex Skinner
Managing Director

Pixl8 Interactive, 3 Tun Yard, Peardon Street, London
SW8 3HT, United Kingdom

T: +44 [0] 845 260 0726• W: www.pixl8.co.uk• E: info@pixl8.co.uk

Follow us on: Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pixl8 Twitter
http://www.twitter.com/pixl8 LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/pixl8

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED - This e-mail and any attachment is intended
solely for the addressee, is strictly confidential and may also be subject
to legal, professional or other privilege or may be protected by work
product immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the addressee please
do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any
attachments. Instead, please email it back to the sender and then
immediately permanently delete it. Pixl8 Interactive Ltd Registered in
England. Registered number: 04336501. Registered office: 8 Spur Road,
Cosham, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO6 3EB


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAFrbJ5WT%2B5DuE_ahnRPfO9DnX2J2kxjUNfyKFwKnaeBMMFyToQ%40mail.gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAFrbJ5WT%2B5DuE_ahnRPfO9DnX2J2kxjUNfyKFwKnaeBMMFyToQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Or, for Lucee 5:

/* org.lucee.cfml.ObjectFactory */
component {
public static function Java(required string clazz, array constructorArgs
=, array classPath=) { … }
public static function Component(required string clazz, any
constructorArgs=, string initMethod="", string package="") { … }
public static function WebService(…) { … }
}

/* index.cfm */

sb = ObjectFactory::Java(“java.lang.StringBuilder”, [“initial string”]);
sb.append(", now appended!");
str = sb.toString();

componentName = “my.Component”;
dynamicComponent = ObjectFactory::Component(componentName);
dynamicComponent = ObjectFactory::Component(componentName, {named:“args”,
work:“here”});
dynamicComponent = ObjectFactory::Component(componentName, [“use”,
“custom”,“constructor”], “__constructor”);

websvc = ObjectFactory::WebService(…);
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:32:50 PM UTC-5, Jesse Shaffer wrote:

Since we’re talking about objects, why not implement what you’re talking
about in an object-oriented manner instead of BIFs?

/* org.lucee.cfml.Object */
component {

public function init(required string clazz, any constructorArgs=[], 

string initMethod="", string package="") {
if (len(initMethod)) {
return createObject(“component”, clazz)initMethod;
} else {
return new “#clazz#”(argumentCollection=constructorArgs);
}
}

}

/* org.lucee.cfml.JavaObject */
component {

public function init(required string clazz, array constructorArgs=[], 

array classPath=) {
var obj = arraylen(classPath) ? createObject(“java”, clazz,
classPath)
: createObject(“java”, clazz)
;
var args = constructorArgs;
switch(arrayLen(constructorArgs)) {
case 0: obj = obj.init(); break;
case 1: obj = obj.init(args[1]); break;
case 2: obj = obj.init(args[1],args[2]); break;
case 3: obj = obj.init(args[1],args[2],args[3]); break;
case 4: obj = obj.init(args[1],args[2],args[3],args[4]);
break;
// case N: …ad nauseum…

        default:
            var _args = [];
            for (i=1; i <= arraylen(args); i++)
                _args.append("args[#i#]");
            evaluate("obj = obj.init(#arrayToList(_args,",")#)");
        break;
    }


    return obj;
}

}

/* ditto for WebServiceObject */

/* index.cfm */

sb = new JavaObject(“java.lang.StringBuilder”, [“initial string”]);
sb.append(", now appended!");
str = sb.toString();

componentName = “my.Component”;
dynamicComponent = new Object(componentName);
dynamicComponent = new Object(componentName, {named:“args”, work:“here”
});
dynamicComponent = new Object(componentName, [“use”,“custom”,
“constructor”], “__constructor”);

websvc = new WebServiceObject(…);

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 7:56:40 AM UTC-5, Micha wrote:

coming back to the topic, sorry for going off like this …

CreateComponent
I agree that is a bad name, it was the shorthand for
createObject(“component”, but it is not very well chosen.
CreateObject is for sure a very good name, but the implementation has
some flaws i will explain in detail in an upcoming blog post, only this
extend that function is not really an option without breaking backward
compatibility.

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient

What do you think?

Micha

Looking at the current naming convention, I would suggest objectNew() as
well.
Concerning JavaProxy and WebserviceProxy, I have no preference.

Maybe a bit off topic, the createObject(). Is it an idea to default the
type to “component”? Or be able to set a default for createObject in the
Application/server?2015-04-15 14:56 GMT+02:00 Michael Offner <@Michael_Offner>:

coming back to the topic, sorry for going off like this …

CreateComponent
I agree that is a bad name, it was the shorthand for
createObject(“component”, but it is not very well chosen.
CreateObject is for sure a very good name, but the implementation has some
flaws i will explain in detail in an upcoming blog post, only this extend
that function is not really an option without breaking backward
compatibility.

So my suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • ObjectNew (like ArrrayNew, EntityNew,StructNew,…)
  • createInstance
  • loadComponent
  • instantiateComponent

JavaProxy
i have coosen this name to follow the pattern of the only existing Java
function in CFML “JavaCast”.
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • JavaNew
  • JavaProxyNew
  • createJavaProxy

WebserviceProxy
i have chosen this name to reflect the name “JavaProxy”
My suggestions are (in order i like them):

  • WebserviceProxyNew
  • createWebServiceProxy
  • WebserviceClientNew
  • createWebserviceClient

What do you think?

Micha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Michael Offner <@Michael_Offner> wrote:

between the lines

Micha

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Adam Cameron <@Adam_Cameron> wrote:

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 00:51:31 UTC+1, Micha wrote:

ANY work on the Lucee project is now open source, if you don’t like the
name of the JavaProxy function do a pull request with a change of the name.

That’s not a very well-thought-through suggestion. You clearly thought
it was a good name,

i never said that

so it would be completely inappropriate for me to unilaterally decide
the function name needs changing, and then go change it (pull req needing
approval notwithstanding). What makes sense in situations like this
is to do exactly what has been done: discuss it. Although as I suggested:
discussing it before hand would have been more sensible.

everybody agreed (including me) that “createComponent” is a bad name, we
discussed a lot and i never sai that JavaProxy or Webservice proxy is a
good name, in the end the onyl thing we disagreed was the role of
createObject and the init function.
For most decision we raise a discussion in the mailing list and then in
the end domeone has to decide how we do it, but we always try to involve
the community

Not all issues need to be solved by hiding one’s head in code, Micha.

right, i did not know that

If you think the wiki content sucks jump in and improve it.

Where I actually have the wherewithal to do so: I do.

you have a lot of knowlege to improbe a lot and you always can ask me

However this is a specious suggestion in the given context as the
updates to the wiki we’re discussing is details of the new work you’ve
done, and (as discussed elsewhere), the community can’t simply magic-up
documentation for work you have done in private.

So you have no clue about this new features? Of course you have, you
already have a lot more knowlege as it is documented in the wiki

If you think we need to get the technical advisory board running, be my
guest you can start it.

This is also completely specious. I cannot do that, can I? Because
I’m not an Association Member, I have authority at all, and for a technical
advisory board to work it can’t just be some people sitting around going
“well it’d be better if it was done this way” if there’s no buy-in from the
people doing the implementation.

never said you should not involve LAS with that :wink: Simply ask LAS if it
is ok that you start this and that you take the lead with it, you would get
a ok for sure, we simply would define some base rule for it …
So first step ask…

There are no sites here, I’m also only part of that community, maybe my
voice has more influence than others, but this is because I spend more time
on the project than everybody else and because I’m knowing the project
better than everybody else

That’s not true at all.

What exactly is not true with that?

and to make one thing very clear, I have not seen a cent from LAS yet
for my work (and Igal as well) and I don’t expect to see one in the near
future!

Well I feel bad for you in that regard, but that was your choice, I
guess. And is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I just want to make clear that i don’t own you anything and that it is
not my job to do anything like you suggested multiple time.

I don’t get paid for any of the work I do for the CFML community either.
Which is, I think, pretty much how it works in a community.

right, but you dont spend 3-4 days a week only for that project

It is easy to complain that the wiki is not existing or minimal, the
hard thing is to change that fact,

No, it really isn’t. All it takes is for the appropriate person to get
on with it and do it.

did you raise your hand for this?


Adam


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups “Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/631b1ba7-d2c3-4e23-9b01-96fc26bd2486%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
“Lucee” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to lucee+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lucee@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzMawvPZowLig3ZRDM%3D3QTaRW5TZALc3J-GtYV4MY9FRA%40mail.gmail.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAG%2BEEBzMawvPZowLig3ZRDM%3D3QTaRW5TZALc3J-GtYV4MY9FRA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Michael van Leest