Woohoo! I can read ken's email... what'd you change man? :) > Man, I'm reading this thread and wondering why Jacob got > som mad over nothing so quickly!!! Did your dog die or > something man? Take it easy man, nobody's here to fight > with each other. We're just trying to solve problems and > help each other out, right?
It's so easy to get into flame wars... I'm sure we've all (well most of us anyway) done it in the past. I've been trying to avoid doing that and just provide "useful info" -- I hope people find it useful. :) > Ferg > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Blackman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Fri 9/19/2003 8:09 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: > Subject: RE: Since its so quiet lately . . . > Jacob, > My biggest concern with your idea of "we don't work > together so it's ok" > is this... > Let's just say you you get fired or go on vacation > tomorrow. Your > company has to hire someone or someone has to maintain > your code while > your out. If you are not using a standard or best > practice to "Scope" > your variables then the person maintaining your code has > to weed through > it and figure out what variables are what. If you don't > scope your > variables it makes it harder to figure out where your > variables are > coming from. > In my opinion, do what you want but hopefully I never > have to go through > the pain of maintaining code that doesn't use best > practices. > As for converting Form and URL variables, I convert them > to the > "request" scope. That way I only have mess with a single > scope when > using form and URL variables. > Cheers. > Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jacob Cameron > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 6:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Since its so quiet lately . . . > As I said earlier today when I was talking to > someone, I won't > use any names:) Sometimes you want to leave scope off of > form and URL > mainly for their use. If they are referring to my code, > they will > notice that there is always scoping used on CGI, Cookie, > session and a > lot of other variables. Do I normally avoid them, yes > when writing form > validation code so I don't have to type as much. If I > would do > something as backwards as looping through an entire scope > to reset one > scope to another and claim it to be faster, who could > possibly think > that finding a work around to try and make your statement > true would > possibly be logical? > I didn't say there was anything wrong with > scoping, simply that > I don't do it on form and URL normally unless I am doing > it for security > reasons. > In my mind, scoping is not a must. A knowledge > of its existence > in the world sure, but if I had my way. Everyone would > start learning > to code with ANSI C so they learn about scoping from that > as I did. > And as many of you know, I also believe that if > you say that you > should 'always' do something in code, then you are very > narrow minded. > Do you think allowing none scoped variables in CF and ASP > was an > accident? A bug? Or are you just smarter than the > creators of these > scripting languages? > Also, in the past I have created sites that have > received over 1 > million hits in one hour and currently work on a site > that receives over > 2 million hits a day. You work on sites that get 1000 > hits a day if > they are luck, more like 1000 a month. In my mind, > worrying about this > kind of stuff is a waste of your time an your employers. > Code anyway > you want. I code my way, that I know works and have > testing in live > environments, not looping on beta code. If you want to > code your way > that is fine, we don't even work together. > I cannot see the difference in load times from > scoping or not > scoping url or form variables, so you are right because > you think you > are? As you said this afternoon, you can loop through it > 1 million times > and see a difference. If you get 1 million hits in one > second or less > to a website you created, you will run out of threads > before a single > web server will be able to serve it an everyone will be > waiting in line > anyway. In talking > about speed, there is a lot more involved than scoping a > variable. Do > any > of the sites you have created or maintain get that many > hits? Are they > on a single server or on multiple. Mine is on a single > server running > CF 5.0. > Jacob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of S.Isaac Dealey > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Since its so quiet lately . . . > I was pretty slack about scoping variables when I first > started working > with ColdFusion and for a while I tried to leave form and > url variables > unscoped intentionally, although I've given up that > habbit. I like to > copy all my form and url variables into an attributes > structure in the > application.cfm which allows me to use base templates as > custom tags if > the need arises and it's only 3 short, sweet lines of > code. (It's one of > the nicer tricks from > Fusebox) If you use New Atlanta's BlueDragon server it's > only 2 lines of > code because BlueDragon automatically combines the form > and url > variables, so referencing form[var] is the same as > referencing url[var]. > I've mostly gotten out of the habbit of unscoped > variables, and try even > with the variables scope to scope them because sometimes > when you don't > scope them during a set statement they don't actually get > into the > variables scope, although I don't know how or why they > don't. If I need > a temp variable quickly for a loop or the like, I'll > frequently use a > single character variable like x or i unscoped, only if I > know that I've > set it and am making all references to it in the same > template. And of > course, if it's in a function or a CFC method, I always > make sure to use > <var> to declare the same single-character variables just > in case. > Is scoping one of the first things a cf developer should > learn? Maybe. I > think so. I know the question of scoping has sparked > minor flame wars on > the cf-talk list. Not by any means like the flame wars > sparked by the > issue of locking, but they've happened. > s. isaac dealey 972-490-6624 > team macromedia volunteer > http://www.macromedia.com/go/team > chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to > onTap is open source > http://www.turnkey.to/ontap > > Thought I would spark up a quick discussion. > > I was discussing a few things with a coder (no names), > > and I raised > > the subject of scoping variables. > > I am a real stickler when it comes to scoping > > variables. Other than > > obvious performance gain, and not having the issue of > > values bleeding > > from one scope into another - scoping simply makes code > > much easier to > > read. > > Looking at the variable #customer# tells you there is a > > variable named > > customer. Looking at the variable #form.customer# or > > #qInvoice.customer# tells you where the value came from > > and some > > insight on how it is going to be used, why, etc... > > (Especially when > > you deal with more than one page per > > request) > > I do on the other hand leave local scoped variables > > alone (the > > variables.[name] scope) - Which I think is standard > > practice, and > > there is no ambiguity when only one scope follows such > > a convention. > > I was curious if anyone else had a differing view of > > scoping. Perhaps > > (though I highly doubt) someone can give me an example > > of when leaving > > off the scope of a variable name has an actual > > advantage. > > The only idea that was half valid was using either > > form/url scope. > > This of course can be solved by coping one scope into > > the other and > > can be done in a few lines, so in the end, I don't > > think it's much of > > a valid point at all. > > Am I alone in thinking scoping variables is an absolute > > must, and > > pretty much day one stuff? > > Best Regards, > > Nate Nielsen > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----------------------------------------------- > > To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: > > Send UNSUBSCRIBE to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To > > subscribe / > > unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org > ----------------------------------------------- > To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe: > Send UNSUBSCRIBE to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe / unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org > ----------------------------------------------- > To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe: > Send UNSUBSCRIBE to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe / unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org > ----------------------------------------------- > To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe: > Send UNSUBSCRIBE to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe / unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org > N�h�צj)m�X����q������칻�&�I��PԔ � > -�X������-u�~�(����r��{�����r��zm����_��� s. isaac dealey 972-490-6624 team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap ----------------------------------------------- To post, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: Send UNSUBSCRIBE to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe / unsubscribe: http://www.dfwcfug.org
