Title:
Bug 86960:Summary: change in behaviour in CFABORT in CF9 breaks backwards compatIt looks like this E/R - http://cfbugs
| View in TrackerStatus/Resolution/Reason: Closed/Fixed/
Reporter/Name(from Bugbase): Adam Cameron / Adam Cameron (Adam Cameron)
Created: 06/29/2011
Versions: 9.0.1
Failure Type: Unspecified
Found In Build/Fixed In Build: 0000 / 280786
Priority/Frequency: Major / Most users will encounter
Locale/System: English / Platforms All
Vote Count: 21
Problem:
Summary: change in behaviour in CFABORT in CF9 breaks backwards compatIt looks like this E/R - http://cfbugs.adobe.com/cfbugreport/flexbugui/cfbugtracker/main.html#bugId=80798 - has been implemented.In previous versions of CF, CFABORT meant... ABORT. Now in CF9 it means "well... kinda abort, but actually keep doing some stuff". This is just daft.I can see how someone MIGHT want to exit a request and continue with onRequestEnd(), but CFABORT is not the way to do this. I would have thought using something like <CFEXIT type="request"> might make more sense.As for having similar behaviour for CFLOCATION situation, perhaps <CFEXIT type="relocate" URL="whatever">Or something else.But what should NOT have been done is to break the existing behaviour of these very very fundamental tags. Especially without actually documenting it (that I can find).I think this is serious enough that removal of the current behaviour should be treated as a hotfix. Reimplementation of another way of handling this could perhaps wait until a subsequent point release of CF.There is further discussion on this topic on Ben Nadel's blog, here:http://www.bennadel.com/blog/2221-CFAbort-And-OnRequestEnd-Behavior-In-ColdFusion-8-And-ColdFusion-9.htm-- Adam
Method:
Result:
----------------------------- Additional Watson Details -----------------------------
Watson Bug ID: 3043880
Deployment Phase: Release Candidate
External Customer Info:
External Company:
External Customer Name: Adam Cameron
External Customer Email: 17EB1A7649DA54C7992015A9
External Test Config: 06/29/2011
Attachments:
Comments: