tracker issue : CF-3756518

select a category, or use search below
(searches all categories and all time range)

Static methods

| View in Tracker

Status/Resolution/Reason: To Fix//Investigate

Reporter/Name(from Bugbase): Adam Cameron / Adam Cameron (Adam Cameron)

Created: 05/07/2014

Components: Language

Versions: 11.0

Failure Type: Enhancement Request

Found In Build/Fixed In Build: CF11_Final /

Priority/Frequency: Trivial / Unknown

Locale/System: English / Platforms All

Vote Count: 5

Related Bugs:
CF-3756524 - Similar to

It would be very handy to be able to have static CFC methods: an awful lot of functions one might write do not deal with stateful data (for example: everything on, so there's no point in them *not* being static. Indeed one should not have to instantiate a CFC instance just to use them.


----------------------------- Additional Watson Details -----------------------------

Watson Bug ID:	3756518

External Customer Info:
External Company:  
External Customer Name: Adam Cameron.
External Customer Email:  
External Test Config: My Hardware and Environment details:



(oops, PS: I'm sure I've raised this before, but could not find the ticket) -- Adam
Comment by External U.
12280 | May 07, 2014 07:06:40 AM GMT
I second this motion (making sure I have at least 25 characters)
Vote by External U.
12294 | May 07, 2014 07:50:24 AM GMT
We need a wider discussion for making the language complete OO. There are quite a few things like - method overloading, static method & variables, abstract components, data types etc. Deferring it for the time being.
Comment by Rupesh K.
12281 | May 11, 2014 08:40:43 PM GMT
Best you get this reopened now, yes? And have that discussion. Whatever you plan, can you pls consult the community first because... erm... generally we've got a better idea of what to put into CF and how it should be implemented that you lot do. No disrespect meant, but you guys don't use CFML after all. We do. Cheers. -- Adam
Comment by External U.
12282 | February 16, 2015 11:20:59 PM GMT
We have decided not to take this up for this release. We will revisit this for the next.
Comment by Rupesh K.
12283 | February 17, 2015 01:27:26 AM GMT
Please re-triage for CF12.
Comment by External U.
12284 | June 20, 2015 05:13:52 AM GMT
Oh, sorry, just checked the date of your previous comment, Rupesh. You mean it's already been rejected for CF12 as well?
Comment by External U.
12285 | June 20, 2015 05:14:42 AM GMT
That's right. It is not being taken up for CF 12.
Comment by Rupesh K.
12286 | June 21, 2015 10:11:36 PM GMT
Ooh, that's rude. Is that the sort of man I am now? Am I rude? Rude and not ginger.
Vote by External U.
12295 | June 30, 2015 12:14:33 PM GMT
01110110 01101111 01110100 01100101 00101011 00101011
Vote by External U.
12296 | July 01, 2015 03:05:25 AM GMT
So... CF2018? You guys could do with improving yer comms around situations like this.
Comment by Adam C.
12287 | May 22, 2017 11:13:48 AM GMT
Can you confirm if this is being considered for CF2018 please? Really hard to tell from the tracker if this is has disappeared into the void never to be re-visited.
Comment by John W.
12288 | May 22, 2017 11:22:43 AM GMT
Opening this up for investigation.
Comment by Vamseekrishna N.
12289 | May 22, 2017 03:42:48 PM GMT
That's good news, Vamsee. Can you pls *keep us in the loop* regarding the investigations / thoughts etc. You can collaborate with the community on this, you know.
Comment by Adam C.
12290 | May 22, 2017 05:00:18 PM GMT
Sure Adam. We will keep you posted and share our thoughts/seek feedback, if necessary.
Comment by Vamseekrishna N.
12291 | May 23, 2017 04:13:23 AM GMT
@Vamseekrishna, Can you please provide a status update on this? Thanks,
Comment by Phill N.
12292 | September 27, 2017 02:02:41 AM GMT
@Phil, this is being reviewed currently.
Comment by Vamseekrishna N.
12293 | September 27, 2017 04:00:44 AM GMT