Hi Kola, If the action following a form requires any database changes, I will ALWAYS redirect, so that when the user decides to go ballistic on the refresh button we don't have a bad situation. I'll usually save the form variables in a session structure if I need to.
Otherwise I don't see a reason why you couldn't include an ACT fuse and a DSP fuse in the same fuseaction. kevinf -----Original Message----- From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: server side form validation?? I used to do the cflocate on errors but when i compared it to actually including the necessary files for each option in the fuse I found it seemed to the end user to be a lot faster, however it meant i would be including 2 fuses in 1 anyone see a problem with this? I think its better this way plus of course you have all the form fields if theres an error. Kola > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: 02 April 2002 16:12 > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: server side form validation?? > > > > > >Jeremy, > > > >Nice to see that you're now a "boxer" :-) > > > >I am in the process of rebuilding my consulting website > >(www.architechx.com - sneak peek at beta.architechx.com) and had to > >deal with the same situation. I used a separate fuse, but rather > >than cflocate, I called the "validation" fuse as a custom tag - based > >on validation results, I cfincluded different sets of files (to keep > >it black boxed, my validation fuse only returned a Boolean) > > > >--- > >Billy Cravens > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Jeremy Ridout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 4:35 PM > >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > >Subject: server side form validation?? > > > >I'm writing my very first FB3 app, a shopping cart, and I'm working > >on the checkout forms. There are 4 stages that our customers must go > >through in order to checkout. Each of these phases, a customer must > >make several form > >inputs. > > > >My question is, what does the FB3 spec say about performing server > >side validation? > > > >I first thought about a separate fuse for validation and depending on > >the pass/fail result from the validator template, I would cflocate to > >the appropriate XFA. I quickly remembered why I don't like to > >cflocate for anything--I lost my form inputs no matter which > >direction I needed to go. > > > >The only obvious solution that I can see is a separate cfif at > >resides above the circuit switch (still within fbx_switch) that first > >looks to see if it > >should attempt to validate, and if so, depending on the result, modify > >the > >fuseaction to direct to request to the appropriate fuse... no cflocation > >necessary. > > > >It works very will and is only 3 lines of code. But, it sure doesn't > >feel like this solution is in the spirit of FuseBox. > > > >BTW, sorry if this topic has been beaten to death in the past, I > >tried to search the topica archives but it wasn't very useful. > > > >Thanks in advance, > >Jeremy > > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
