I *like* that rule :)
On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Barney Boisvert wrote:
> Rather than just reconsidering the rule, you might simply replace it
> with "no multi-term expressions in the view". Not a viable goal in
> all cases, but pretty darn close. Views shouldn't have logic apart
> from that directly concerned with the view structure (looping rows in
> a table, conditionally displaying an action button, etc.). All the
> dynamic values and conditional expressions should be single terms
> (often - usually? - a method call):
>
> #person.getAge()#
> not
> #dateDiff('yyyy', dateOfBirth, now())#
>
> <cfif person.isMinor()>
> not
> <cfif person.getAge() GT AGE_OF_MAJORITY>
>
> cheers,
> barneyb
>
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Peter Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Steve Bryant wrote:
>>> and of being able to have a rule for "no method calls in the view" which
>>> helps to avoid inadvertent calls to looping code from within an output loop.
>>
>> That's pretty much the opposite of how any OO app works. ALL of them are
>> based on calls in the view to both business objects and view helpers. If you
>> had no method calls in the view in Rails or Grails, you wouldn't have an
>> application at all.
>>
>> Personally, I'd reconsider that rule.
>>
>> Best Wishes,
>> Peter
>
>
> --
> Barney Boisvert
> [email protected]
> http://www.barneyb.com/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "CFCDev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"CFCDev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en.
