The benefit of using structures (vs. arrays, or individual vars) exists
independently of what scope the var is in.
Well, lets say you've got a user, and for each user you want an ID, a
username, and a fullname
You could go...
client.id
client.username
client.fullname
or you could do a structure "user"
and have
user.id
user.username
user.fullname
So what?
Want to see all the dope on your user?
<CFDUMP var="user">
Want to have a load of 15 users?
<CFSET user = ArrayNew(1)>
<CFLOOP from="1" to ="15" index="loopindex">
<CFSET user[loopindex].id = {something}>
<CFSET user[loopindex].username = {something}>
<CFSET user[loopindex].fullname = {something}>
</CFLOOP>
Then you can zip the whole wad up
<cfwddx action="CFML2WDDX" input="#user#" output="wddx_temp">
<cfset client.user = wddx_temp>
And you want to git it back out?
<CFSET user = ArrayNew(1)>
<cfwddx action="WDDX2CFML" input="#client.user" output="#user#">
it's all good...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: forcing user to login
>
> What is the advantage of putting complex data in a client variable
> anyway?
> Why would you not just have multiple client variables like:
> client.authenicated, client.userid, client.password, client.firstname,
> client.lastname...?
>
> -Drew Harris
>
>
> Jeff Peters wrote:
> > Well, you're not required to use WDDX, but the client scope will only
> > accept simple data types, so you must convert
> > the structure to a simple data type. Using WDDX is an easy way to do
> > that.
> >
> > - Jeff
> >
> > On 4 Jun 2002 at 14:30, Troy Murray wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > So let me make sure I have this straight. If I use CLIENT VARIABLES, I
>
> > > cannot use the structure
> > > that I'm currently keeping in a SESSION VARIABLE without performing
> some
> > > type of WDDX
> > > conversion back and forth?
> > >
> > > -T
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Lamb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:38 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: forcing user to login
> > >
> > > My 2 cents. I think using client variables for the security aspect is
> > > great. But I also know that
> > > usually the bottleneck in an application are those darn database
> calls.
> > > Considering this, I think it
> > > would handicap you greatly to limit your thinking one way or the other
>
> > > exculsively. I think even in a
> > > clustered enviroments, you would benifit moving client variables that
> > > have extensive calls to
> > > session variables for the pupose of reading within the app.
> > >
> > > Rick
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeff Chastain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:10 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: forcing user to login
> > >
> > > For the original question ... I tend to build a fuseaction
> (checkLogin)
> > > that I can use
> > > cfmodule to call and check the users credentials. That way the
> actual
> > > check code is
> > > encapsulated in the login circuit (i.e. my current circuit only
> needs to
> > > know the user is
> > > logged in, not how to check for it). With the cfmodule call, I can
> also
> > > put it in individual
> > > fuseactions rather than trying to secure a whole circuit. So far
> it
> > > seems to work well and
> > > nobody has offered a reason yet not to do so (I can already here
> them
> > > coming ;-))
> > >
> > > On the second point, I as well have always stuck to client variables.
> > > The primary reason is just
> > > being lazy - I did not want to have to mess with locking session or
> app.
> > > variables. I have not had
> > > to deal with a clustered environment, but that would be a definite
> > > reason to avoid them. I have
> > > been debating trying session variables again now that MX does not
> > > require locking, but my client
> > > variables work fine - why would I need session variables?
> > >
> > > -- Jeff
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Timothy Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:25 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: forcing user to login
> > >
> > > I know the question wasn't directed at me, but as I only use
> client
> > > vars, I think I can add an
> > > answer.
> > >
> > > Ease of use.
> > >
> > > No locking. Ever. I don't feel the need to use application or server
> > > scoped variables either. What
> > > little I may loose by not using them, I make up for in performance. No
>
> > > variables maintained in
> > > memory, no fear of those variables getting corrupted. It's client
> > > variables, stored in a DB for me
> > > all the way.
> > >
> > > Tim.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Troy Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:39 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: forcing user to login
> > >
> > > Drew,
> > >
> > > I'm curious, other then having clustered environments, was there
> > > anything else that lead you to
> > > use CLIENT vs. SESSION variables?
> > >
> > > -T
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Drew Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 5:49 PM
> > > To: Fusebox List
> > > Subject: Re: forcing user to login
> > >
> > > I used session then at the last Fusebox conference got hammered about
> > > questions
> > > regarding it in the session I gave about using Fusebox for Enterprise
> > > applications
> > > when I was talking about this security app that I had built.
> > > Now I use a client variable, session variables are dangerous in
> > > clustered
> > > environments.
> > >
> > > And to answer your question, I put mine at the top of the fbx_switch
> > > page just before
> > > my cfswitch begins.
> > >
> > > -Drew Harris
> > >
> > > On 5/31/02 4:17 PM, "Tom Schreck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Where(tm)s the best place to put the logic to check for the
> presence of a
> > > session variable to
> > > determine if the user should be forced to login? The session
> variable
> > > indicated the user
> > > has logged in. The absence of one indicates the user needs to
> login.
> > > I(tm)ve tried the
> > > fbx_Setting in the root circuit, but it(tm)s not working.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks -
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Schreck
> > >
> > > 817-252-4900
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have not failed. I've found 10,000 ways that won't work.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Thomas Edison
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
==^================================================================
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
==^================================================================
