Poor design. There will be some coldFusion file requests that don't need that include. No matter how much you say never, it's bound to happen.
If it's a small site, then we're talking about ten cfincludes. If it's a large site, then it's very likely that you either already have coldFusion requests that don't require those includes, or you will at one point encounter that. No, there is nothing wrong with it, it's just poor design. Really, how long does it take to type: <cfinclude template="header.inc">. Pretty easy to copy and paste it too... I actually take it one step further and use them as custom tags instead. Not really necessary, but I like typing <cf_header> instead. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:51 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude There is nothing wrong with including files in Application.cfm. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901 > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Bridges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:43 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude > > I can' recall the exact reason either but I have heard also that it is > extrememly bad form to use Application.cfm and OnRequestEnd.cfm to do any > type of cfincludes ... I got reprimanded in an article I wrote for > including header and footer files that way. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:23 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: application.cfm vs. cfinclude > > But if he is already including it at the top of each page, and this is > going to continue to be the case, then I do not see any reason why you > could not > do this. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Costas Piliotis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:19 PM > Subject: RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude > > > > I remember forta strongly advising against it. Don't remember why, but > he > > suggested that all you have in it is the <cfapplication> tag. > > > > With includes, you have full control over when they are included or not. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Austin Govella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:10 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: application.cfm vs. cfinclude > > > > > > I use includes for the DTD at the top of every page. > > > > I was planning on using cfinclude to add the DTDs, but if the > application. > > cfm is automatically stuck at the top of every page, is there a reason > why > > it'd be bad to ask the it to add the DTD? > > > > I was thinking I'd save myself some small bit of server load if it only > > processed te application.cfm, as opposed to processing application.cfm > AND > > a cfinclude. > > > > And then there's the footer and the onrequestend.cfm file... > > > > -- > > Austin Govella > > Grafofini > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
