I am running ACF 2021 (2021.0.18.330341) standard edition, and attempting to configure mail settings. I noticed something strange where, when I check the box "Maintain Connection to Mail Server" and then "Submit Changes", the box shows as unchecked, despite seeing the green "Server has been updated successfully" message:   This feels like a bug to me. Can anyone else confirm if they have the same issue. I tried enabling TLS connections on and off to see if it made a difference. It does not.   Note: I have a successful connecction to the SMTP server and can send mail fine.  The reason why I want to enable this setting is because we frequently send out a "burst" of emails at once and read that enabling this feature is recommended. ... View more

We've all built forms that use common reference data like country codes/names, states, etc.  Historically I've always stored this type of information in a database that I would query as needed.  However, some types of reference data may change once in awhile (e.g. zip/postal codes) and maintaining that data across apps can be a bit cumbersome.   Now that I've started thinking about apps from a modular HMVC approach (Coldbox fanboy here), I played with the idea of moving reference data into an external module that could be more easily updated and shared, both between apps and with the CF community (e.g. Forgebox). To play around with this concept further, I created a generic module called "DataLib" that would store US States. The first thing I did was eliminate the database dependency, and instead, I stored all of the reference data as a .json file residing in the module.  I then created a component that, when instantiated, would read the reference data and deserialize it for CFML use. Here's an example of my first experiment: Structure /modules_app/dataLib/ModuleConfig.cfc  // Coldbox module file /modules_app/dataLib/models/UsStates.cfc // The CFC that is responsible for providing data /modules_app/dataLib/data/usStates.json // the raw JSON file containing the data The UsStates.cfc file might look something like this: component hint="I am the the US State data library" { /** * Constructor */ function init() { // read the data file into the private scope variables.states = deSerializeJson( fileRead( expandPath( "/dataLib/data/usstates.json" ) ) ); return this; } /** * list * Returns the data */ struct function list() { return variables.states; } /** * listAsArray * returns the data as an array * todo: force the array to be alphabetical. */ array function listAsArray() { var stateArray = []; variables.states.each( function( key, value ) { stateArray.append( { "name": value, "initials": key } ); } ); return stateArray; } I had a few thoughts about my approach: 1. I love the modularity and ability to store the actual data separately.  When the US finally decides to conquer Canada, updating the json file would be extremely easy and it could be pushed to Github, Forgebox, or wherever. 2. I am concerned about the performance implications of using fileRead() to consume the JSON file during instantation.  I could make the component a singleton, but for larger reference data (e.g. ZipCodes), I don't like the idea of all that data sitting in memory during the lifespan of the app.  For smaller data sets like countries/states, keeping things in memory doesn't smell bad to me. Perhaps this method of storing reference data is ideal only for smaller data sets. Larger data sets like zip codes likely belong in the database, especially since you typically query a subset of data instead of the whole thing at once and databases are good at that type of thing. 3. I also like the idea of adding data manipulation methods onto the component. For example, requesting the data in array format, sorted, etc would be pretty easy to implement and provide useful utilities for consumption. What do you think? How do you handle storing commonly used reference data?  Can you see any other flaws in modulizing  small reference data sets like I've done in my example? ... View more

I write a lot of apps that interact with external APIs.  Often times the data returned by 3rd parties is a deeply nested structure of data - and occasionally the 3rd party isn't reliable enough to send consistent response structures so I need to check for the existence of structure keys to avoid errors (frustrating, I know).   Here's an example of what several response objects might look like from the same API    { // Response sample 1: apiResponse: { data: { errors: [ "surname is invalid" ] } } // Response sample 2: apiResponse: { error: "The system is currently offline" } // Response sample 3: apiResponse: { data: { name: [ "john smith" ] } } }   When I digest the data, I check the `apiResponse` for the existence of keys and sub keys before processing.  However, it can be pretty tedious from a coding perspective to write out expressions that check for the existence of every single sub-key like this:   if ( arguments.apiResponse.keyExists( "data" ) && arguments.apiResponse.data.keyExists( "errors" ) ) { // ... do something }   I wanted to simplify the code, and unfortunately `structKeyExists()`  does not support nested keys. My first instinct was to use the 'isDefined()` function to check for the existence of the full struct key path.  However, the `isDefined()` function has been mostly vilified by the CFML community for performance/security reasons (related discussion related StackOverflow) Here's the same `if` statement from above using `isDefined()` instead:   if ( isDefined( "arguments.apiResponse.data.errors" ) ) { // ... do something }   Much cleaner, right?  Howver, what about the performance implications?  `isDefined()` by design will check various scopes to see if the variable exists, which can be slow. I wrote a small UDF that I theorized would be more efficient than `isDefined()` and could allow me to dynamically check a struct for the existence of a key.  Here's what I came up with:   boolean function structHasKey( required struct struct, required string key ) { var keyArray = listToArray( arguments.key, "." ); var subStruct = arguments.struct; for ( var item in keyArray ) { if ( !subStruct.keyExists( item ) ) { return false; } subStruct = subStruct[ item ]; } return true; }   With this new UDF, we can make the same check as above like this:   if ( structHasKey( arguments.apiResponse, "data.errors" ) ) { // ... do something }     I wrote a simple benchmark to see how this UDF stacks up against `isDefined()` and the traditional approach of using `structKeyExists()`. Now, I realize TryCF isn't the most scientifically appropriate benchmarking tool, but it's interesting to see how the various CFML engines (Adobe/Lucee) handle the different approaches.  I also believe `isDefined()` must perform differently based on the number of variables present in the URL/FORM (and other) scopes that it checks.   After running the TryCF gist 20-30 times, the fastest method was the old-school `structKeyExists()`.  Both the UDF method and `isDefined()` traded between 2nd and 3rd place quite often - especially depending on the CF engine so I wasn't able to make a final consensus.   If I were a betting man, i would have thought my UDF was going to beat `isDefined()` every time, but the overhead of executing the UDF must outweigh any benefit of the approach. If anyone has any tips on improving the UDF, or my test setup, let me know as I'd love to play with this concept more.       ... View more

We all know the benefits of being able to write `this.datasource` in your Application.cfc. However, does anyone know if there's a way to override or change this value elseware in the app?   For example, you might have a configuration CFC or JSON file that would need the App to use a different `this.datasource` value.   It would be great to be able to change this on the fly if needed. My only theory as of now (untested) would be to create a method in the Application.cfc which would re-assign the datasource dynamically like this: function setDatasource() { // read configuration file... this.datasource = 'foo'; } You could then call this method somewhere in your app using the application scope like this: `application.setDatasource()` Any thoughts or input would be most welcome 🙂 ... View more