ColdBox Framework Forums Notification: Post to enable includeUDF() to replace existing functions

Title: RE: enable includeUDF() to replace existing functions
Thread: enable includeUDF() to replace existing functions
Forum: Enhancements
Conference: ColdBox
User: jondbo I really like the approach of using an extended abstract base handler, thanks
for recommending this as a more maintainable approach (I'm new to approaching
OOD, so these solutions aren't always obvious to me yet!)

Regarding the
downside of replacing (vs. overriding) the original function, I'm thinking that
referencing the original function within a pseudo-"super" scope might be one way
to retain access. The problem with this is that all extending CFCs need to be
avoid using this pseudo-scope so as not to "step" on it... do you have any
thoughts regarding whether this would be best implemented by either using a
specially-named struct (ex. variables["_super"]), for simplicitly's sake, or
doing something more complicated (but harder to "step on"), such as using an
obscurely named struct alongside with dedicated setter and getter functions
function (ex. the struct is variables["JHGtyFA3S4D63473AD4GK4U4YAGSD"], and
getSuper([functionname]) and setSuper([functionname]) are used for access).
I'm assuming this is more matter of preference than of methodology, but I am
interested in developing a sense of recommended vs. best avoided apporaches.
And of course, I'm interested in any alternate approaches that come to mind.
thanks again!