can't loop the variables scope
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 4:16 PM
Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
> Steve, would you be cool with adding form and URL vars to the variables
> scope instead of the attributes scope? That would solve all my issues.
>
> Hal Helms
> Team Allaire
> [ See www.halhelms.com <http://www.halhelms.com> for info on training
> classes ]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:22 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Re: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
>
>
> That's NOT why we didn't use form and URL!!!!! It was put in there for
> this reason:
> ------------------------------------
> <cfquery datasource="blah">
> insert into sometable(somefield)
> values(#attributes.somefield#)
> </cfquery>
> ------------------------------------
> you can now call that code like this:
> ------------------------------------
> <cfmodule template="/blah/blah/index.cfm"
> fuseaction="addwhatever"
> somefield="stinky stinky cheese">
> ------------------------------------
> NO FORM IS NECESSARY! If you use the form scope, you're tied to the
> form on the previous page. Which means you lose a ton of flexibility.
>
> Try doing it with a form scope.
> ------------------------------------
> <cfquery datasource="blah">
> insert into sometable(somefield)
> values(#form.somefield#)
> </cfquery>
> ------------------------------------
> <cfmodule template="/blah/blah/index.cfm"
> fuseaction="addwhatever">
> ------------------------------------
> This won't work! You would need the form, or you need to be super
> kludge with your code to make it work.
>
> Steve "wikitiwak" Nelson
>
> Hal Helms wrote:
> >
> > Oh yeah? Yeah? You and what army, pal?
> >
> > Steve asks why the flap over attributes. From my POV, it's that the
whole
> > thing was so wrong-headed to begin with. It solved a problem that didn't
> > exist! It was based on a misperception that form and URL vars weren't
> > available to custom tags. And didn't even solve it correctly, as it
never
> > really made it an attributes scoped variable.
> >
> > So, the only argument for it is that we want a single-scoped variable.
But
> > do we only want it for form and URL variables? Why stop there? In other
> > words, I don't see the rationale behind it. I think that we look at the
> > ancillary benefits (putting unrelated code in the tag that parses search
> > engine friendly URLs), but that has nothing to do with creating new
> > variables with an "attributes." as part of their name.
> >
> > And of course, there IS a cost associated with it. It does add to
> processing
> > time; it does take up server RAM; and it does cause everyone to write
> > "attributes." when they aren't strictly needed. Honestly, it bothers my
> > sense of clean, elegant code. And my experience has taught me that
beauty
> > pays off in many ways, many of which can't be immediately predicted.
> >
> > Hal Helms
> > Team Allaire
> > [ See www.halhelms.com <http://www.halhelms.com> for info on training
> > classes ]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nat Papovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:52 AM
> > To: Fusebox
> > Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
> >
> > Well the stinking tag is called FORMURL2attributes, not
> ALLVARS2attributes.
> > So I like the flexibility of having my form and url vars in attribs, but
> > don't really care about my xfa vars. Using your rationale, it would seem
> > that every var you ever use would be attributes, which I know is not
> right.
> > I just make a decision to only scope certain things certain ways.
> >
> > NAT
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 5:29 AM
> > > To: Fusebox
> > > Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
> > >
> > >
> > > The reason I put XFAs in the attribs scope is that I was trying to be
> > > consistent with the whole FormURL2Attributes logic, the argument
> > > being that
> > > we should have a unified scope. So now, you're going to have some
> > > vars that
> > > are purely local and some that are attributes? These attributes
> > > are starting
> > > to feel like an appendix--having had a purpose at one time, but now
just
> > > hanging around.
> > >
> > > When do I get to see my little um...err...clone/baby?
> > >
> > > Hal Helms
> > > Team Allaire
> > > [ See www.halhelms.com <http://www.halhelms.com> for info on training
> > > classes ]
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nat Papovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:13 AM
> > > To: Fusebox
> > > Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
> > >
> > >
> > > What do XFBs have to do with the attribs scope? I never put them in
the
> > > attribs scope myself, only the local scope (and not as a structure as
> the
> > > original XFB outline mentions), and I haven't gotten a ticket yet...
> > >
> > > NAT
> > >
> > > p.s. The creation (birth?) of Mini Hal is coming along nicely.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:54 PM
> > > > To: Fusebox
> > > > Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > >
> > > > Part of the cost is having to prefix everything with "attributes."
> When
> > > > dealing with XFAs, etc, this gets to be a significant amount of
> > > > time. But I
> > > > agree with you about the search-engine friendly URLs. That's a
> > > > nice feature.
> > > > Score one for FormURL2Attributes.
> > > >
> > > > Hal Helms
> > > > Team Allaire
> > > > [ See www.halhelms.com <http://www.halhelms.com> for info on
training
> > > > classes ]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 12:01 AM
> > > > To: Fusebox
> > > > Subject: Re: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I agree--that's the only thing that's really nice about having
> > > > it. Again,
> > > > I
> > > > > just wonder if the cost is worth it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > somehow I missed the originating comment that must have started
> > > this. Has
> > > > someone done a cost analysis to see exactly how much we are
> > > really paying
> > > > for the convenience?
> > > >
> > > > (as an aside, if the need for ATTRIBUTES is somewhat moot due to non
> FB
> > > > custom tag calls, and therefore only FORM and URL are in play,
> > > > then perhaps
> > > > we should need a URL2FORM.cfm or vice-versa tag. I happen to like
the
> > > > ability to have search-engine friendly URLs)
> > > >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
