Charlie, I agree with you on that.
_______________
Derrick Peavy
Sent from my iPhone
_______________
On Mar 11, 2010, at 15:27, "Charlie Arehart" <char...@carehart.org>
wrote:
See. :-) With all due respect and admiration, Steve, that’s just the
sort of attitude I’m railing against. I think it’s just dead
wrong to flatly reject the tag outright, suggesting that it should N
EVER be used. :-)
Again, I get that for SOME people and for SOME situations, there may
be reasons that it doesn’t work for you. Goodness, that’s true
with just about anything, right?
But before accepting that bold dismissal, I hope that some who’ve he
ard only that sort of ill regard for it will take a look at the arti
cle I pointed out below, where I highlighted a few ways that CFFORM
and its subsidiary tags have evolved fairly significantly over the y
ears. Some of them are quite valuable, such as the “submitonce”
validation that was added to help prevent users from hitting submit
twice on a form, or the cfinput type=”datefield” which offers a
very useful popup calendar.
Granted, many have the chops and motivation to craft such features
by hand or may choose to use scripts (or entire libraries) they get
from elsewhere, and there’s no denying that becoming versed in a new
ajax library can bring still more value in features that perhaps Ad
obe hasn’t yet implemented.
But my whole point is that for a great majority of users, having the
feature built-in without any need for coding is simply a valuable
asset that shouldn’t be dismissed so readily and completely. Again,
I’d recommend people take in the various perspectives but give cauti
on to outright dismissals. That just isn’t due diligence.
But hey, mine is indeed just one person’s opinion. I don’t expect
it to carry any more weight than others.
/charlie
PS Here’s the PDF url again:
CFFORM: Are You Sure You Want to Ignore It?
http://www.carehart.org/articles/#2007_3
From: ad...@acfug.org [mailto:ad...@acfug.org] On Behalf Of Steve Ross
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 1:42 PM
To: discussion@acfug.org
Subject: Re: [ACFUG Discuss] validating credit card numbers with CF
Well the problem with CFFORM is that it will burn you. I have
stopped using it as a result. It is easier to know what is going to
happen when there isn't some blackbox trying to do whatever you
think you want for you. This is especially the case with all the
built in ajax stuff. Do yourself a favor and NEVER use it unless you
you are doing some one off ad hoc page that will be thrown away.
However, we all know how rarely that happens and typically you will
come back to it and have to rewrite when some bug hits later on down
the line.
Ok I'll stop ranting... back to flex.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Charlie Arehart <char...@carehart.org
> wrote:
About Frank’s situation of having been burned in the past by CFFORM,
it kind of makes my point. It’s this kind of situation, where someo
ne gets burned and the issue is later fixed, where sadly so often th
e “bad taste” is left and people “move on”. Worse, at least
in your case you know the problem was fixed, but others may have see
n people report the issue but never heard of MM’s solution to it, so
they go on bad-mouthing the tool.
<snip>
-------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, manage your profile @
http://www.acfug.org?fa=login.edituserform
For more info, see http://www.acfug.org/mailinglists
Archive @ http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion%40acfug.org/
List hosted by FusionLink
-------------------------------------------------------------
