<@U01EY27APNH> What is Adobe's position/long-term ...
# adobe
c
@Mark Takata (Adobe) What is Adobe's position/long-term plan for the deprecated CFCs that provided cfscript functionality for tags (query.cfc, ldap.cfc, http.cfc, etc.)? Will they ever be completely removed in a future release?
👍 1
m
Good question. We usually try not to break too much older code by totally removing things. If we do, you'll get a warning.
c
Could I make a recommendation that CF Next formally removes them? They have been bug-ridden (and possibly insecure) for many years, and Adobe has basically marked all the bug tickets as "Never fixing". As long as the release notes for CF Next clearly state that the CFCs have been removed, I think that should be adequate. Since they are CFCs and not built-in functions, I'm not sure how you'd issue a warning about their removal though.
👍 1
Or replace them with CFC "stubs" that mock each method with something like:
Copy code
throw(type="application", message="The query() component is no longer available.  Use queryExecute() instead.")
💯 7
1
t
I agree with this 100%. I think it's important to funnel people to use the modern/supported approaches.
🙏🏻 1
👍 1
m
@Charvi @Bagish Mishra please note for discussion
👍 1
c
Also, the deprecations page on the documentation (https://helpx.adobe.com/coldfusion/deprecated-features.html) lists those CFCs as "deprecated". However, they should be listed as "deprecated and unsupported", since bugs are not being fixed.
👍 2
d
You could always release the depreciated CFC tags as a separate download, for people who need to preserve funcationality (and maybe they output a log entry with their usage to make it easier to identify code that needs to be updated).
👍🏻 1
👍 3
b
Yeah I was thinking maybe it could be an optional (non-default) include on install
d
If they have security issues it's not clear that's sufficient. At minimum the separate download would need to come with a big red warning.
🛑 2