Re: application.cfc and UDFs
>I'd say create a CFC that contains all the UDFs you need.
I agree. That's what I suggested earlier. But personally I would separate the
udfs by function. Instead of creating one large cfc, I would create one
utility class for each category of functions such as: StringUtil.cfc (for
string functions), DBUtil.cfc (for db functions), etc. But thats partly a
> As for the UDFs that are in cfscript, you can place them into a CFC as-is.
The only thing I don't like about using functions >written in that manner is
that without the cffunction tag and cfargument tags, you've got no way to
restrict what data types >are sent in and what data types are returned.
I agree with you there too. Better to rewrite the functions so you can take
advantage of the benefits introduced with cffunction and cfargument.