RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise?

[Hal Helms]

It's fine to disagree with Dave or anyone, but attacking someone's
motives is over the line. Unless, of course, your sister is Miss Cleo,
in which case all bets are off. 

As to the issue involved, I'm a one-man shop and I have to agree with
Dave on this. At some point if Macromedia doesn't make some money, there
won't be a company to complain about. I think their decision to make the
eval version convert to a developer's version was a great one. Sure, we
all want everything for free, but didn't we just go through a dot bomb
experience in which we (hopefully) rediscovered the value of profit?

Hal Helms
"Java for CF Programmers" class immediately
after Macromedia DevCon.
Info at www.halhelms.com

-Original Message-
From: Greg Bullough [mailto:gwb@;outofchaos.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:48 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Developer Edition wish was Re: Pro v Enterprise? 


At 01:08 PM 10/17/02 -0400, Dave Watts wrote:
>I'm kind of surprised by this request. I don't work for Macromedia,

Yes, but we will admit, won't we, that Fig Leaf has historically had
rather a 'special' relationship with Allaire/Macromedia...

>so I can't answer on their behalf. However, this seems to be well 
>beyond the purview of the Developers Edition, which is really designed 
>for a single developer's use.

Is it, now? Should it be?

The question is, does Macromedia want to facilitate development using
their software, which sells license after license, or continue to raise
the 'cost of entry' to the point where they push shops that are smaller
than the 'establlishment' (like Figleaf) off to the very viable, less
costly, alternatives, such as PHP and JSP?

>  If you want to do shared development, you're supposed to purchase the

>appropriate license. With CF 5, if I recall correctly, what we now call

>the "Developers Edition" was then called the "Single-User Edition".

Once true. However, CF has sort of moved beyond that. When I first
started CF, and went to a Fast Track to Cold Fusion class )taught by a
Fig Leaf employee), one of the jolly things about CF was you could
develop a fairly complex site on your laptop. On a pretty feeble laptop
at that. I know. I did.

Somewhere 'long about 4.5, sites got heavier and so did CF and Studio,
and it got harder to do that.

>This kind of limitation isn't that uncommon, when it comes to 
>development tools. You tend to get very little for free - you either 
>have to purchase "seats", or buy limited-functionality versions, for 
>development use. If you need to use the "real thing", you tend to have 
>to purchase the "real thing".

Being a bit disingenuous aren't we? Fig Leaf, after all, is a Premier
Partner, and gets free NFR copies...

>This is part of the typical cost of development. Buying a single $5k 
>server license that allows you unlimited development against it is 
>pretty cheap,

Single? Single? Let's see, we have sites on 4.5, 5.0, NT, and Linux. We
have a shared production server on each platform. And a development
server on each.

Not sure how Dave gets 'single' out of that...

>compared to a lot of other products out there.

Well, not really. If you're developing for ASP, the application server
comes with the OS (the one on which most copies of CF run).

You DO pay money for Microsoft's IDE if you use it, but so then do you
for the one that goes with CF. (.NET seems to be another story, but it
isn't clear that that is going to fly.)

Now, I know Fig Leaf would rather not have to compete against those
pesky 1- to 6-man shops, but let's argue the interests of the continued
proliferation of the platform, not the interests of certain Premier
Partners who may be, shall we say, a bit 'closer' to the former Allaire
than most of us mere mortals.

Greg





~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

Let's see: CFCs have given us a "this" scope which is *public*; instance
variables can't be made private except by the kludge of using an unnamed
scope. We have CFCs presented as OO, but which has no concept of super.
We have no overloading of methods in CFCs. 

Were I given to irony, I might say that "I am not anti-CFC per se, but
it does tend to live in its own little bubble and it takes words,
concepts and phrases from the much larger world of OO and misuses them
in a way that causes confusion." 

;-)

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 12:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFC theory


On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 08:27 , Jeffry Houser wrote:
>   I almost skipped over this post because it was all quotes.  ( I 
> imagine that was because the list was bouncing stuff for a bit).

Yeah, sorry about that.

> 3. Is the data created inside a component protected from outside 
> forces?  I'm a little grey on this one.  You can create component 
> specific variables using the this scope.

"this" scope is public, the unnamed scope is private so this gets a YES.

> 2. Do CFCs support Overloading / Overriding?  Not in related objects.

Overloading no, overriding yes. (And I don't really agree that
overloading 
is actually *necessary* to claim 'OO-ness' - much of the worst code I
have 
seen in OO languages is because of overloading and there are almost
always 
ways around it).

> A child CFC inherits all parent
> methods as is.  You do not have the ability to change functionality of

> inherited methods.

Yes you do. Try the following:

// base.cfc:






// derived.cfc:






// test.cfm:



b.foo() is #b.foo()#
d.foo() is #d.foo()#


You can pass d to anything expecting a base component instance so 
substitutability is preserved and polymorphism is also preserved.

> 3. Do CFCs support inheritance?  Yes, they do.  However without the 
> overloading / overriding it is nothing more than a fancy include.

Overloading is mostly irrelevant for inheritance - in most (all?) OO 
languages, when you inherit an overloaded set of methods, you have to 
reimplement all of them in order to preserve overloading - overloading 
normally only occurs within each class definition.

As pointed out above, CFMX does have overriding so inheritance *is* more

than a fancy include.

> 4. Do CFCs support polymorphism?  I would say no.  I cannot create two

> different methods with the same exact name, but different argument 
> types.  That is the essence of polymorphism.

No, that is overloading. Polymorphism requires overriding - see above -
so 
CFMX  *does* support polymorphism. Polymorphism is 'virtual functions'
in 
most every OO language, something that CFMX does have.

> For me, the lack of the ability to overload is what makes me say you 
> cannot apply Object Oriented development

As I say above, overloading really has nothing to do with OO. C has 
overloading (Oh, yes, it does! Check out the latest ISO C standard to
see 
how they worked that in. Not for all types, admittedly, but they did add

it).

(Do I need to mention that I wrote the first ANSI-validated C compiler, 
spent eight years on the ISO C++ Standards Committee - three as
secretary 
- designing parts of that language and also worked on the UK and ISO
Java 
Study Groups for a couple of years as well? :)

Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood


__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

I agree with you completely, Matt. I object to CFCs using the "this"
scope and making this public. It removes virtually all of the benefits
of having it. This could easily have been overcome by allowing us to set
access attributes such as private. But using an "unnamed scope" seems to
me to be a kludge to get around what should have been implemented.
Having a  tag with an access attribute (or some such
mechanism) would make perfect sense. 

The term, OO, is not merely an imprimatur that marketing can annoint a
product with if it is to mean anything at all. We should be able to
expect that "this" is a private scope, that CFCs would have overloadable
methods, overloadable constructors, etc. 

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFC theory


> Let's see: CFCs have given us a "this" scope which is *public*;
instance
> variables can't be made private except by the kludge of using an
unnamed
> scope. We have CFCs presented as OO, but which has no concept of
super.
> We have no overloading of methods in CFCs.
> 
I don't really think making variables private within CFCs is a kludge. I
do however feel the implementation of CFCs is generally poor. IMHO, the
cfproperty tag should declare variables for a CFC and should include an
attribute for public or private access. Further, any variables declared
with cfset should be private within the context of where they were
declared. This would enable function scoped variables automatically
without having to use the stupid var keyword.

I do wish CFCs were more Java like, but I wouldn't be so quick to say
they aren't OO.

> Were I given to irony, I might say that "I am not anti-CFC per se, but

> it does tend to live in its own little bubble and it takes words, 
> concepts and phrases from the much larger world of OO and misuses them

> in a way that causes confusion."
> 
I think a perfect example is ColdFusion Component, which is nothing more
than a class.

-Matt


__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

Overloading means that a method or constructor can have multiple "method
signatures". For example, an overloaded constructor for Person() might
have the following Person(), Person(firstName, lastName),
Person(firstName,lastName, address), etc. Not having this ability means
that we have to resort to all sorts of workarounds while a standard OO
implementation of overloading would eliminate this problem.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 1:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFC theory


At 09:27 AM 9/1/2002 -0700, you wrote:

> > 3. Is the data created inside a component protected from outside 
> > forces?  I'm a little grey on this one.  You can create component 
> > specific variables using the this scope.
>
>"this" scope is public, the unnamed scope is private so this gets a 
>YES.

   :hmm:  That is interesting.  I don't like un-named scopes.  I wish 
someone at Macromedia took a little time to document this stuff.
   I thought the variable was automatically put into the this scope.  I 
have to agree with Hal on this one.  That is a kludge.  The scope should

have a name.  A scope named private would have been a better option.


> > 2. Do CFCs support Overloading / Overriding?  Not in related 
> > objects.
>
>Overloading no, overriding yes. (And I don't really agree that 
>overloading is actually *necessary* to claim 'OO-ness' - much of the 
>worst code I have seen in OO languages is because of overloading and 
>there are almost always ways around it).


  Allow me to bang my head on the desk.  I was using the two terms 
interchangeably.
  I doubled checked my OO book and it uses the term overloading 
exclusively.  What exactly is overriding, then?


> > A child CFC inherits all parent
> > methods as is.  You do not have the ability to change functionality 
> > of inherited methods.
>
>Yes you do. Try the following:
>
> // base.cfc:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> // derived.cfc:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> // test.cfm:
> 
> 
> 
> b.foo() is #b.foo()#
> d.foo() is #d.foo()#
> 
>
>You can pass d to anything expecting a base component instance so 
>substitutability is preserved and polymorphism is also preserved.

  You're right.  When did this creep into the product?  I'd bet my right

arm that this was not supported during the beta cycle?




> > 3. Do CFCs support inheritance?  Yes, they do.  However without the 
> > overloading / overriding it is nothing more than a fancy include.
>
>Overloading is mostly irrelevant for inheritance - in most (all?) OO 
>languages, when you inherit an overloaded set of methods, you have to 
>reimplement all of them in order to preserve overloading - overloading 
>normally only occurs within each class definition.
>
>As pointed out above, CFMX does have overriding so inheritance *is* 
>more than a fancy include.

  Yes, you are right.  I retract my original statement.  It was based on

incomplete facts.



> > 4. Do CFCs support polymorphism?  I would say no.  I cannot create 
> > two different methods with the same exact name, but different 
> > argument types.  That is the essence of polymorphism.
>
>No, that is overloading. Polymorphism requires overriding - see above -

>so CFMX  *does* support polymorphism. Polymorphism is 'virtual 
>functions' in most every OO language, something that CFMX does have.
>
> > For me, the lack of the ability to overload is what makes me say you

> > cannot apply Object Oriented development
>
>As I say above, overloading really has nothing to do with OO. C has 
>overloading (Oh, yes, it does! Check out the latest ISO C standard to 
>see how they worked that in. Not for all types, admittedly, but they 
>did add it).



>(Do I need to mention that I wrote the first ANSI-validated C compiler,

>spent eight years on the ISO C++ Standards Committee - three as 
>secretary
>- designing parts of that language and also worked on the UK and ISO
Java
>Study Groups for a couple of years as well? :)

  ;)  Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble drilling the differences
between 
overloading and overriding into my head?



--
Jeffry Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Need a Web Developer?  Contact me!
AIM: Reboog711  | Phone: 1-203-379-0773
--
My CFMX Book: 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072225564/instantcoldfu-20>
My Bo

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

Another problem with the unnamed scope is that you can't have this:

 

That puts a needless restriction that instance variables be named
differently from arguments and reduces the readability of code, IMHO.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:48 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFC theory


I agree with you completely, Matt. I object to CFCs using the "this"
scope and making this public. It removes virtually all of the benefits
of having it. This could easily have been overcome by allowing us to set
access attributes such as private. But using an "unnamed scope" seems to
me to be a kludge to get around what should have been implemented.
Having a  tag with an access attribute (or some such
mechanism) would make perfect sense. 

The term, OO, is not merely an imprimatur that marketing can annoint a
product with if it is to mean anything at all. We should be able to
expect that "this" is a private scope, that CFCs would have overloadable
methods, overloadable constructors, etc. 

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFC theory


> Let's see: CFCs have given us a "this" scope which is *public*;
instance
> variables can't be made private except by the kludge of using an
unnamed
> scope. We have CFCs presented as OO, but which has no concept of
super.
> We have no overloading of methods in CFCs.
> 
I don't really think making variables private within CFCs is a kludge. I
do however feel the implementation of CFCs is generally poor. IMHO, the
cfproperty tag should declare variables for a CFC and should include an
attribute for public or private access. Further, any variables declared
with cfset should be private within the context of where they were
declared. This would enable function scoped variables automatically
without having to use the stupid var keyword.

I do wish CFCs were more Java like, but I wouldn't be so quick to say
they aren't OO.

> Were I given to irony, I might say that "I am not anti-CFC per se, but

> it does tend to live in its own little bubble and it takes words,
> concepts and phrases from the much larger world of OO and misuses them

> in a way that causes confusion."
> 
I think a perfect example is ColdFusion Component, which is nothing more
than a class.

-Matt



__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

Or perhaps part of the issue is the flavor of "OO" Macromedians are used
to. As Alan Kay, one of the creators of Smalltalk once said, "I invented
the term 'object oriented' and I can tell you I did NOT have C++ in
mind."

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

>Well if you ask me (you did), Macromedia is having a real problem with
both their documentation and their people giving out false information.
You have to understand that for many of CF people --including those from
Macromedia-- all this OO stuff is brand new.

-Matt


__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

Well, that's exactly what we have to do because the folks at Macromedia
decided not to offer overloading. But programmers shouldn't have to
resort to conditional code to make up for the language's deficits. 

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:53 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFC theory


I disagree. What you are suggesting is a lame use of overloading that
could easily be handled by an if statement. Simply make the address
parameter optional and check for its existence. IMHO, overloading should
only be used for strongly typed languages.

Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
V: 415-577-8070
F: 415-341-8906
P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> -----Original Message-
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:53 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFC theory
> 
> Overloading means that a method or constructor can have multiple
"method
> signatures". For example, an overloaded constructor for Person() might

> have the following Person(), Person(firstName, lastName), 
> Person(firstName,lastName, address), etc. Not having this ability
means
> that we have to resort to all sorts of workarounds while a standard OO

> implementation of overloading would eliminate this problem.
> 
> Hal Helms
> Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at 
> www.techspedition.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 1:29 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFC theory
> 
> 
> At 09:27 AM 9/1/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> > > 3. Is the data created inside a component protected from outside 
> > > forces?  I'm a little grey on this one.  You can create component 
> > > specific variables using the this scope.
> >
> >"this" scope is public, the unnamed scope is private so this gets a 
> >YES.
> 
>:hmm:  That is interesting.  I don't like un-named scopes.  I wish 
> someone at Macromedia took a little time to document this stuff.
>I thought the variable was automatically put into the this scope.
I
> have to agree with Hal on this one.  That is a kludge.  The scope
should
> 
> have a name.  A scope named private would have been a better option.
> 
> 
> > > 2. Do CFCs support Overloading / Overriding?  Not in related 
> > > objects.
> >
> >Overloading no, overriding yes. (And I don't really agree that 
> >overloading is actually *necessary* to claim 'OO-ness' - much of the 
> >worst code I have seen in OO languages is because of overloading and 
> >there are almost always ways around it).
> 
> 
>   Allow me to bang my head on the desk.  I was using the two terms 
> interchangeably.
>   I doubled checked my OO book and it uses the term overloading 
> exclusively.  What exactly is overriding, then?
> 
> 
> > > A child CFC inherits all parent
> > > methods as is.  You do not have the ability to change
functionality
> > > of inherited methods.
> >
> >Yes you do. Try the following:
> >
> > // base.cfc:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> > // derived.cfc:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> > // test.cfm:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > b.foo() is #b.foo()#
> > d.foo() is #d.foo()#
> > 
> >
> >You can pass d to anything expecting a base component instance so 
> >substitutability is preserved and polymorphism is also preserved.
> 
>   You're right.  When did this creep into the product?  I'd bet my
right
> 
> arm that this was not supported during the beta cycle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > 3. Do CFCs support inheritance?  Yes, they do.  However without
the
> > > overloading / overriding it is nothing more than a fancy include.
> >
> >Overloading is mostly irrelevant for inheritance - in most (all?) OO 
> >languages, when you inherit an overloaded set of methods, you have to

> >reimplement all of them in order to preserve overloading -
overloading
> >normally only occurs within each class definition.
> >
> >As pointed out above, CFMX does have overriding so inheritance *is* 
> >more than a fancy include.
> 
>   Yes, you are right.  I ret

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

Look at this code, Matt, for a Quandry.cfc:



















Here's some test code:




I netted #DollarFormat( q.reportNetIncome() )# this year.


It outputs $86,000, as expected.

Now use this test code:





I netted #DollarFormat( q.reportNetIncome() )# this year.


It still reports 86,000, indicating that something is amiss in the
setSalary() method. But if you change the setSalary() method so that the
argument name is different from the instance variable, like this:






Then the same test code returns $215,000, a number I think you'll agree
is much friendlier.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:54 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFC theory


Why doesn't your code work? Seems perfectly acceptable to me assuming
you have already declared score outside of the function.

Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
V: 415-577-8070
F: 415-341-8906
P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> -----Original Message-
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFC theory
> 
> Another problem with the unnamed scope is that you can't have this:
> 
> 
> 
> That puts a needless restriction that instance variables be named 
> differently from arguments and reduces the readability of code, IMHO.
> 
> Hal Helms
> Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at 
> www.techspedition.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:48 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFC theory
> 
> 
> I agree with you completely, Matt. I object to CFCs using the "this" 
> scope and making this public. It removes virtually all of the benefits

> of having it. This could easily have been overcome by allowing us to
set
> access attributes such as private. But using an "unnamed scope" seems
to
> me to be a kludge to get around what should have been implemented. 
> Having a  tag with an access attribute (or some such
> mechanism) would make perfect sense.
> 
> The term, OO, is not merely an imprimatur that marketing can annoint a

> product with if it is to mean anything at all. We should be able to 
> expect that "this" is a private scope, that CFCs would have
overloadable
> methods, overloadable constructors, etc.
> 
> Hal Helms
> Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at 
> www.techspedition.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:24 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFC theory
> 
> 
> > Let's see: CFCs have given us a "this" scope which is *public*;
> instance
> > variables can't be made private except by the kludge of using an
> unnamed
> > scope. We have CFCs presented as OO, but which has no concept of
> super.
> > We have no overloading of methods in CFCs.
> >
> I don't really think making variables private within CFCs is a kludge.
I
> do however feel the implementation of CFCs is generally poor. IMHO,
the
> cfproperty tag should declare variables for a CFC and should include
an
> attribute for public or private access. Further, any variables
declared
> with cfset should be private within the context of where they were 
> declared. This would enable function scoped variables automatically 
> without having to use the stupid var keyword.
> 
> I do wish CFCs were more Java like, but I wouldn't be so quick to say 
> they aren't OO.
> 
> > Were I given to irony, I might say that "I am not anti-CFC per se,
but
> 
> > it does tend to live in its own little bubble and it takes words, 
> > concepts and phrases from the much larger world of OO and misuses
them
> 
> > in a way that causes confusion."
> >
> I think a perfect example is ColdFusion Component, which is nothing
more
> than a class.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> 
> 
> 

__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

I was not meaning to imply that overloading should only be used for
different number of variables, but for both number *and* type of
variables - in other words, for method signatures. If CFCs are going to
do typechecking for return types and argument types, they can certainly
do type checking for method arguments.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:07 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFC theory


What? If you use an if statement or an overload the same conditional
logic still happens. It is just a matter of what syntax you use to
accomplish it. And again IMHO, overloading is a bad choice of variable
numbers of parameters.

Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
V: 415-577-8070
F: 415-341-8906
P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 1:09 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFC theory
> 
> Well, that's exactly what we have to do because the folks at
Macromedia
> decided not to offer overloading. But programmers shouldn't have to 
> resort to conditional code to make up for the language's deficits.
> 
> Hal Helms
> Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at 
> www.techspedition.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:53 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFC theory
> 
> 
> I disagree. What you are suggesting is a lame use of overloading that 
> could easily be handled by an if statement. Simply make the address 
> parameter optional and check for its existence. IMHO, overloading
should
> only be used for strongly typed languages.
> 
> Matt Liotta
> President & CEO
> Montara Software, Inc.
> http://www.montarasoftware.com/
> V: 415-577-8070
> F: 415-341-8906
> P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:53 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: CFC theory
> >
> > Overloading means that a method or constructor can have multiple
> "method
> > signatures". For example, an overloaded constructor for Person()
might
> 
> > have the following Person(), Person(firstName, lastName), 
> > Person(firstName,lastName, address), etc. Not having this ability
> means
> > that we have to resort to all sorts of workarounds while a standard
OO
> 
> > implementation of overloading would eliminate this problem.
> >
> > Hal Helms
> > Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at 
> > www.techspedition.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 1:29 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: CFC theory
> >
> >
> > At 09:27 AM 9/1/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> > > > 3. Is the data created inside a component protected from outside

> > > > forces?  I'm a little grey on this one.  You can create
component
> > > > specific variables using the this scope.
> > >
> > >"this" scope is public, the unnamed scope is private so this gets a

> > >YES.
> >
> >:hmm:  That is interesting.  I don't like un-named scopes.  I
wish
> > someone at Macromedia took a little time to document this stuff.
> >I thought the variable was automatically put into the this scope.
> I
> > have to agree with Hal on this one.  That is a kludge.  The scope
> should
> >
> > have a name.  A scope named private would have been a better option.
> >
> >
> > > > 2. Do CFCs support Overloading / Overriding?  Not in related 
> > > > objects.
> > >
> > >Overloading no, overriding yes. (And I don't really agree that 
> > >overloading is actually *necessary* to claim 'OO-ness' - much of
the
> > >worst code I have seen in OO languages is because of overloading
and
> > >there are almost always ways around it).
> >
> >
> >   Allow me to bang my head on the desk.  I was using the two terms 
> > interchangeably.
> >   I doubled checked my OO book and it uses the term overloading 
> > exclusively.  What exactly is overriding, then?
> >
> >
> > > > A child CFC inherits all parent
> > > > methods as is.  You do not have the ability to change
> functionality
> > > > of inherited methods.
>

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

True, Sean, but not having overloading in an OO language seems baffling,
at least to me.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:22 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFC theory


On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 12:52 , Hal Helms wrote:
> Not having this ability means
> that we have to resort to all sorts of workarounds while a standard OO

> implementation of overloading would eliminate this problem.

Overloading has *nothing* to do with OO! Overloading is a language
feature 
in several NON-OO LANGUAGES!

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood


__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

I can't agree that this is the same as in Java. In Java, I can define an
instance variable as private and then set it to an identically named
argument passed into a method. You've said that the unnamed scope is the
way to implement private instance variables, yet the code shows that you
cannot set the unnamed scope to an identically named argument passed
into a method. Why not simply allow the "this" scope to contain private
as well as public variables? 

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFC theory


All this simply argues that reusing the same name in different scopes is

rightly considered bad practice. Note that this collision is *exactly*
the 
same as in Java where arguments scope takes priority over instance
scope.

On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 01:29 , Hal Helms wrote:

> Look at this code, Matt, for a Quandry.cfc:
>
> 
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>  name="reportNetIncome"
>   access="public">
>   
>   
>
>returntype="numeric">
>   
>   
> 
>
> Here's some test code:
>
> 
>
> 
>   I netted #DollarFormat( q.reportNetIncome() )# this year.

>
> It outputs $86,000, as expected.
>
> Now use this test code:
>
> 
> 
>
> 
>   I netted #DollarFormat( q.reportNetIncome() )# this year.

>
> It still reports 86,000, indicating that something is amiss in the
> setSalary() method. But if you change the setSalary() method so that 
> the argument name is different from the instance variable, like this:
>
> 
>   
>   
> 
>
> Then the same test code returns $215,000, a number I think you'll 
> agree is much friendlier.
>
> Hal Helms
> Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at 
> www.techspedition.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:54 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFC theory
>
>
> Why doesn't your code work? Seems perfectly acceptable to me assuming 
> you have already declared score outside of the function.
>
> Matt Liotta
> President & CEO
> Montara Software, Inc.
> http://www.montarasoftware.com/
> V: 415-577-8070
> F: 415-341-8906
> P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:58 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: RE: CFC theory
>>
>> Another problem with the unnamed scope is that you can't have this:
>>
>> 
>>
>> That puts a needless restriction that instance variables be named 
>> differently from arguments and reduces the readability of code, IMHO.
>>
>> Hal Helms
>> Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at 
>> www.techspedition.com
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 3:48 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: RE: CFC theory
>>
>>
>> I agree with you completely, Matt. I object to CFCs using the "this" 
>> scope and making this public. It removes virtually all of the 
>> benefits
>
>> of having it. This could easily have been overcome by allowing us to
> set
>> access attributes such as private. But using an "unnamed scope" seems
> to
>> me to be a kludge to get around what should have been implemented. 
>> Having a  tag with an access attribute (or some such
>> mechanism) would make perfect sense.
>>
>> The term, OO, is not merely an imprimatur that marketing can annoint 
>> a
>
>> product with if it is to mean anything at all. We should be able to 
>> expect that "this" is a private scope, that CFCs would have
> overloadable
>> methods, overloadable constructors, etc.
>>
>> Hal Helms
>> Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at 
>> www.techspedition.com
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 12:24 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: RE: CFC theory
>>
>>
>>> Let's see: CFCs have given us a "this" scope which is *public*;
>> instance
>>> variables can't be made private except by the kludge of using an
>&

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

But CF does type checking for return types and argument types. It allows
polymorphism by checking the type, so why can't we expect it to know
enough to sort out the type of the argument passed to it?

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFC theory


On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 12:48 , Hal Helms wrote:
> I agree with you completely, Matt. I object to CFCs using the "this" 
> scope and making this public.

Why? "this" scope in Java is for public data members (as well as private

data members). "this" scope in C++ is for public data members (as well
as 
private data members).

> But using an "unnamed scope" seems to
> me to be a kludge to get around what should have been implemented.

Elsewhere in CF 'variables' and the unnamed scope are synonymous. We
have 
already acknowledged a bug that 'variables' does not behave correctly 
inside components. That bug will be fixed.

> The term, OO, is not merely an imprimatur that marketing can annoint a

> product with if it is to mean anything at all. We should be able to 
> expect that "this" is a private scope, that CFCs would have 
> overloadable methods, overloadable constructors, etc.

Since "this" is *not* a private scope specifically in any OO language I 
can think of, I think your expectations are wrong - based on lack of 
knowledge of other OO languages perhaps?

As myself and Matt have pointed out, overloading belongs in strongly
typed 
languages, not typeless ones.

Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood


__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

I think the problem is that CF is "moderately" typed, something we're
not used to. Otherwise, what would such functions such as isNumeric(),
is Array(), isStruct() as well as the "type" attribute in ,
in , and the "returntype" attribute in  mean?

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFC theory


Oh no! CF does not do type checking as there are no types. CF does
provide a built-in way to validate data that though. These two things
are not the same.

Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
V: 415-577-8070
F: 415-341-8906
P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 1:57 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFC theory
> 
> But CF does type checking for return types and argument types. It
allows
> polymorphism by checking the type, so why can't we expect it to know 
> enough to sort out the type of the argument passed to it?
> 
> Hal Helms
> Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at 
> www.techspedition.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 4:32 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFC theory
> 
> 
> On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 12:48 , Hal Helms wrote:
> > I agree with you completely, Matt. I object to CFCs using the "this"

> > scope and making this public.
> 
> Why? "this" scope in Java is for public data members (as well as
private
> 
> data members). "this" scope in C++ is for public data members (as well

> as private data members).
> 
> > But using an "unnamed scope" seems to
> > me to be a kludge to get around what should have been implemented.
> 
> Elsewhere in CF 'variables' and the unnamed scope are synonymous. We 
> have already acknowledged a bug that 'variables' does not behave 
> correctly inside components. That bug will be fixed.
> 
> > The term, OO, is not merely an imprimatur that marketing can annoint
a
> 
> > product with if it is to mean anything at all. We should be able to 
> > expect that "this" is a private scope, that CFCs would have 
> > overloadable methods, overloadable constructors, etc.
> 
> Since "this" is *not* a private scope specifically in any OO language
I
> can think of, I think your expectations are wrong - based on lack of 
> knowledge of other OO languages perhaps?
> 
> As myself and Matt have pointed out, overloading belongs in strongly 
> typed languages, not typeless ones.
> 
> Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
> 
> "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
> -- Margaret Atwood
> 
> 
> 

__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFC theory

[Hal Helms]

Polymorphism is based on types, Sean. I won't return your insult and
suggest that you don't know this. I'm suggesting that if CF knows enough
about types to implement polymorphic behavior that it might know enough
to allow for overloading. 

To respond to your direct question, yes, I can actually program in
Smalltalk and Java. Rather than turn this into an adolescent challenge,
though, I would think that you would be interested in the issues I've
raised about CFCs and the implementation of OO. My experience is that
when people resort to ad hominem arguments, it's because they've run out
of real ones.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 5:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFC theory


On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 01:56 , Hal Helms wrote:
> But CF does type checking for return types and argument types. It 
> allows polymorphism by checking the type, so why can't we expect it to

> know enough to sort out the type of the argument passed to it?

What has polymorphism got to do with return type and argument type 
checking???

Hal, I don't mean to be rude, but can you actually program in Java and /

or C++?

Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood


__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CF Structures

[Hal Helms]

I have a tutorial on arrays and structures at www.halhelms.com that may
help you.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Everett, Al [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 5:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF Structures


> I am a bit limited in my dealings with Cold Fusion structures.
> 
> And as such, I was wondering if anyone has any links to good reference

> onlive dealing with CF Structures?
> 
> Thanks a ton for any and all help,

As I was learning about structures, CFDUMP was invaluable to me. I just
couldn't "get it" until I could see a diagram.

__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: OT: No good CFMX Books

[Hal Helms]

If anyone has an interest in writing a short, highly-focused book that
goes into depth on development topics, please feel free to send me an
email with your ideas. Techspedition Press is designed to offer exactly
that type of book.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 8:09 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT: No good CFMX Books


Dwayne

I agree with the need you defined.

I'd probably add web services, XML, (more) advanced database, and 
Interfacing Java.

If you have any writing talent at all, why don't you consider writing 
it yourself -- you'll be amazed about how much you learn when preparing 
  to present or write information for the consumption of  of strangers.

Dick

__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: run CF from db

[Hal Helms]

I haven't tried this trick with CFMX, but 18 months ago or so, Rick Moon
and I were faced with this problem: the situation required a LOT of code
to be stored in the DB and then executed dynamically. That meant writing
and then reading a file, which I was very concerned with for performance
reasons. We ended up creating a RAM disk and using that. We got
excellent performance. Now, that may all be different with CFMX, but may
be worth a look still.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:36 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: run CF from db


Nick Varner wrote:
> Is there a way to evaluate Coldfusion after it is pulled from a db 
> instead of CF thinking its text?

Writing it to a temp file and cfincluding it is an option, but I don't 
recommend it. As soon as you are on CF MX, compilation will kill your 
performance.

Jochem


__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Eclipse

[Hal Helms]

I don't, Thomas, but please, if you find one, post it. Eclipse is such a
great IDE.

Hal Helms
"Java for CF Programmers" class 
in Washington, DC June 23-27
www.halhelms.com

-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Eclipse


I don't suppose anyone knows of a CFML plugin for this IDE ?
-- 
Tom C
"Land of the free, home of the brave... you have to be brave to live
there and 
enjoy the freedoms"

~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq

This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
http://www.cfhosting.com

Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4

RE: Fusebox/docs additions to CF Studio

[Hal Helms]

They do work on Studio 5.x, Peter. There is work going on right now to
provide support for Fusedocs in DWMX.

-Original Message-
From: Tilbrook, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:00 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: SOT: Fusebox/docs additions to CF Studio


Does anyone know if the Studio 4.5 additions for Fusebox/docs from
www.fusebox.org work under Studio 5.x? Does Dreamweaver MX offer any
Fusebox/docs support?

Cheers!

==
Peter Tilbrook
ColdFusion Applications Developer
Defence Housing Authority
26 Brisbane Ave
Barton ACT 2600
AUSTRALIA

Ph: 02 6217 8444
Fax: 02 6217 8500
Website: www.dha.gov.au 

__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

New Fusebox book available

[Hal Helms]

What: Discovering Fusebox 3
Who: Hal Helms and John Quarto-vonTivadar
Where: www.techspedition.com
Price: 29.99

If you're interested in learning for yourself what Fusebox is all about,
you may want to pick up the book written by co-authors of the Fusebox 3
specification.

__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: New Fusebox book available

[Hal Helms]

It's fastest from techspedition.com. The printer is doing the
fulfillment, so there's no delay. You can get it sent out regular or
expedited.

-Original Message-
From: Douglas Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:10 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: New Fusebox book available


Hey I wanna order the book, how long does it take from amazon or
techspedition? I tried to get it from our local B&N but they did not
have it in stock :-(




Douglas Brown
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Tilbrook, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: New Fusebox book available


> I plugged your book yesterday, Hal. At a Fusebox 3 demo we ran.
>
> I've already ordered it through Amazon.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, 12 July 2002 12:14 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: New Fusebox book available
>
>
> What: Discovering Fusebox 3
> Who: Hal Helms and John Quarto-vonTivadar
> Where: www.techspedition.com
> Price: 29.99
>
> If you're interested in learning for yourself what Fusebox is all 
> about, you may want to pick up the book written by co-authors of the 
> Fusebox 3 specification.
>
>
> 

__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements

[Hal Helms]

A Boolean value is a logical TRUE or FALSE. In some languages, this is
represented as 0 and 1 or 0 and non-zero, but that's an implementation
detail.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher Olive [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:33 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements


but it IS a boolean.  1 and 0 are boolean yes and no (in most
languages).

chris olive

-Original Message-
From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:59 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements


If QueryResults is supposed to be a boolean, isn't
it better to make it a boolean? Doesn't that make
it easier to understand the intent of the code?


The above statement tells me that QueryResults holds
the number of records in the query. If I output
the variable, I'll get a number. 


This tells me that QueryResults is a boolean, and
represents whether the query has any records. If
I output the variable, I'll get "YES" or "NO."

Patrick

> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:25 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> 
> 
> This thread is odd. As Tim pointed out earlier, any non-zero
> value evaluates as TRUE so you can just say 
>  and be done with it.
> That's far cleaner for the eye.
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Patrick McElhaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:20 AM
> Subject: RE: Writing efficient CFIF statements
> 
> 
> > Clean and fast:
> >
> > 
> >
> > Patrick
> > 


__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: OT: Little Nervous

[Hal Helms]

I have another solution to the nerves problem. If YOU appear in YOUR
underwear, you'll make THEM nervous. This follows a more general design
pattern called TagYouAreIt in which one's problems are transferred to
the other party. Remarkably effective.

-Original Message-
From: Smith, Matthew P -CONT(DYN) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 3:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: OT: Little Nervous


Heck, why wait till you're nervous?


; )


- Original Message -
From: "Tangorre, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:13 PM
Subject: RE: OT: Little Nervous


> If you get nervous, picture Hal Helms, Ben Forta, etc... in their
skibbys  :-)
>
> Problem solved.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 2:04 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: OT: Little Nervous
>
>
> Break a leg. :)
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Bill Wheatley wrote:
>
> > I'm going to be doing a seminar tonight with a friend in Miami about
Macromedia MX line. I'll be doing CF and some of the other products and
my friend will be doing the remainder of the MX line for his graphics
side of it.
> >
> > And then after that I'm going to start teaching a CF class at the 
> > CADD
institute of Miami. So I'm a little nervous since this would be my first
paid group learning I will be doing. :) I already talked with Adam C.
about his tips now anyone else have any other tips.
> > Besides - Don't forget to zip your fly lol.
> >
> > Though I'm excited and I'm sure it will be great so we'll just have 
> > to
see!
> >
> > Bill Wheatley
> > Senior Database Developer
> > Macromedia Certified Advanced Coldfusion Developer EDIETS.COM
> > 954.360.9022 X159
> > ICQ 417645
> >
> >
>
> 


__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Using THIS scope in CFCs

[Hal Helms]

Simon,

Why don't you think files should be included in CFCs? I'm interested in
hearing why you think that violates the OO paradigm.

Hal

-Original Message-
From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 4:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Using THIS scope in CFCs


the only comment I have is that if you are using components to build
object modeled applications, you shouldn't be including files from cfcs.
My opinion is that components are not just another code re-use
constructthey're an entirely different beast.  If you are using
them, you should know "object think".

~Simon

Simon Horwith
Macromedia Certified Instructor
Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer
Fig Leaf Software
1400 16th St NW, # 500
Washington DC 20036
202.797.6570 (direct line)
www.figleaf.com



-Original Message-
From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 4:25 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Using THIS scope in CFCs


I'm using THIS scope in my included files used within my CFCs since the
argument scope is not available. (I believe is known issue). The
downside to this is I have to append the argument scope.

I was previously using ATTRIBUTES scope but I figure THIS is safer...

 

Comments/suggestions?

 



AVIS IMPORTANT: 
---
Les informations contenues dans le present document et ses pieces
jointes sont strictement confidentielles et reservees a l'usage de la
(des)
personne(s) a qui il est adresse. Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire,
soyez avise que toute divulgation, distribution, copie, ou autre
utilisation de ces informations est strictement prohibee.  Si vous avez
recu ce document par erreur, veuillez s'il vous plait communiquer
immediatement avec l'expediteur et detruire ce document sans en faire de
copie sous quelque forme.

WARNING:  
---
The information contained in this document and attachments is
confidential and intended only for the person(s) named above.  If you
are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or any other use of the information
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document by mistake,
please notify the sender immediately and destroy this document and
attachments without making any copy of any kind.




__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Using THIS scope in CFCs

[Hal Helms]

I agree, Ben. That's very frustrating. Also, the inability to call a
component's parent using super() or something like it is a tremendous
hit to anything like OO programming.

-Original Message-
From: Benjamin S. Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:59 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Using THIS scope in CFCs


> the only comment I have is that if you are using components to
> build object modeled applications, you shouldn't be including 
> files from cfcs.

I don't know what the original poster is using includes for, but I think
there are some really valid reasons to include files into a CFC.
Unfortunately, there are some really monumental problems with CFCs that
make including files problematic (i.e. the argument scope isn't
available or the fact that CFReturn is silently ignored in an included
file).

The reason I originally started experimenting with including files into
CFCs is that, if I included all of the actual logic of a function, it
kept both the CFC file and function files short and sweet. Additionally,
since ColdFusion supports dynamic includes, I reasoned that if I was
working on one function and had a syntax error in my code, it would not
cause other functions of the same CFC to throw an error.

Now, that said, I don't think CFIncludes are a great choice for code
reuse, at least not in an environment that supports custom tags,
CFModule calls, CFCs, etc. Nevertheless, I think there are several valid
reasons for using the CFInclude tag within CFCs. However, current CFC
bugs make it necessary to implement inelegant workarounds.

Benjamin S. Rogers
http://www.c4.net/
v.508.240.0051
f.508.240.0057


__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CF Scheduler - URL Name

[Hal Helms]

I just tried setting some scheduled tasks with CFMX using the
 tag, but without success. Has anyone used it much in CFMX
and gotten it to work properly?

-Original Message-
From: Cameron Childress [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 8:20 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF Scheduler - URL Name


The URL should look the same as it would if you ran it from a web
browser.
IE:

http://www.enterpriseenergy.com/directory/scheduledpage.cfm

> Should I use a CF Mapping ?

CF mappings only apply to CF tags such as CFINCLUDE.  A CF Mapping of
"bartee" would make this code point to that folder from anywhere on the
server:



But a CF mapping is not the same as an IIS mapping.  For example, it
wouldn't apply in this case:

link

Hope that helps!

-Cameron

-
Cameron Childress
Sumo Consulting Inc.
---
cell:  678-637-5072
aim:   cameroncf
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


> -Original Message-
> From: Bartee Lamar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 8:08 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: CF Scheduler - URL Name
>
>
> What should the URL name look like in CF Scheduler (CF 4.5.2)
>
> Should I use a CF Mapping ?
>
> Bartee Lamar
> www.enterpriseenergy.com 
> MSN   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> 

__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: cfflush & fusebox

[Hal Helms]

Yes, Issac, we're working on that. For the record, it's not just
Fusebox; it's any code that uses . But we've got some
ideas brewing...

-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:46 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: cfflush & fusebox


Has anyone else noticed that the cfflush tag is completely useless if
you use the fusebox layout method? ...

I'm working on an application that was built by some other folks in fb2
( though the same would apply if it were fb3 ) and they asked me to add
an "ALL" button to a page which uses pagination... but because the
potential exists that the contents of the page could be inordinately
large ...  ( thousands of results in the list query, with a gratuitous
amount of cf code for each result ) , it may not be feasible to display
the page without flushing the output buffer ... but cfflush can't be
used inside of a  or  tag, which is where
the fusebox layout would necessitate it being, and even if it could, it
would either display the content above the top of the layout (where it
shouldn't be) or would display nothing at all until the page finished
loading anyway, which was the problem necessitating the cfflush solution
..

so my options are to leave it alone and risk things blowing up because
impatient users continually hit the refresh button before the page
finishes loading, or tediously extricate the content from the fusebox
architecture and then have to maintain it separately...  ... this
is very frustrating...

Hey Hal, any thoughts on a revision to the fb3 suggested specification
for layouts?

Isaac Dealey

New Epoch
www.turnkey.to
954-776-0046

__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: What's [not] going on?

[Hal Helms]

Dick,

Aren't you at the special "CF 7 Preview Conference"? 

Just kidding - maybe everybody's just taking a well deserved break.


-Original Message-
From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 11:54 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: What's [not] going on?


The CF lists have all been quiet this weekend -- is something special 
going on with the CF Developer community?

Dick


__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: starting with CFMX - site/article/book recommendations

[Hal Helms]

I've just completed a book on "Discovering ColdFusion Components" that
should be out in 6 weeks. If you want to pre-order a copy, head over to
www.techspedition.com. That's only a little part of what you were
asking, but may be helpful. Unfortunately, there's not too much
exhaustive info on CFMX; you'll have to pick up info from various
articles written at Macromedia's site, from the list here, and from
studying the code provided in the Pet Store app by MACR.

-Original Message-
From: Gyrus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:49 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: starting with CFMX - site/article/book recommendations


I'm just getting started with CFMX. I would say I'm intermediate to
advanced already with CF 5. Any recommendations for good intro
articles/tutorials out there on the web? Also, any book recommendations
would be good.

I know about the obvious ones - e.g. MM developer centre - just looking
for interesting stuff that may plug some gaps. I'm especially interested
in:

- Where we stand as developers now with CFMX regarding shared scope
variables, locking, session variables used in clustered environments,
etc.

- Weighing up pros/cons/best pratices between custom tags, UDFs and
CFCs.

- Anything like a list of very common workarounds/hacks/"best practices"
in CF 4/5 that no longer apply to CFMX due to improved functionality.

Any pointers greatly appreciated,

- Gyrus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Article: A Wealth of Woe at Macromedia (fwd)

[Hal Helms]

I think the point Maureen is making (and I think it's a good one) is
that the world we create in software looks VERY different depending on
whether you're a resident or simply someone who visits that world
occasionally. To someone who lives there, it's obvious (or takes very
little time) to get where they want to go. For the explorer, though,
it's a whole different thing.

I'm constantly amazed at sites that almost seem to go out of their way
to give users a bad experience. I think the feedback that specific
things could be better should be welcomed.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 4:55 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Article: A Wealth of Woe at Macromedia (fwd)


Developer Edition = Trial Edition.  Same thing.  After 30 days it
reverts 
to the developer edition.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bryan Stevenson wrote:

> I hear ya Maureen.
> 
> I went to MM yesterday to find the link to the download page for the 
> CF MX developer edition.  Well I couldn't find such a beast.  All I 
> could find was the trial download, which doesn't tell you anything 
> about the trial (i.e. 30 days...1 IP..etc.).  Now being the smart 
> cookie I think I am I assume it's the right link...but...
> 
> Yup...nothing worse than having to drill all the way down to the final

> step before you even get an idea of what you're looking at.
> 
> my 2 cents CDN
> 
> Bryan Stevenson B.Comm.
> 

-- 

Todd Rafferty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - http://www.web-rat.com/ |
Team Macromedia Volunteer for ColdFusion   |
http://www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/  |
http://www.flashCFM.com/   - webRat (Moderator)|
http://www.ultrashock.com/ - webRat (Back-end Moderator)   |



__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: cfcomponents and required complex values

[Hal Helms]

You can omit the type descriptor entirely, if you need to.

-Original Message-
From: Brook Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 12:36 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: cfcomponents and required complex values


I have a cfc which has the following argument. The problem is that if I
do 
not pass it an array it throws an error that the value is not an array.
How 
do I make it optional to pass a value to this method?



Brook Davies
maracasmedia inc.



__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFMX and Java Books?

[Hal Helms]

I got the book from Amazon, Michael. It's good. I even saw a quote from
a famous guy on the cover, a guy who I believe runs email lists...

A warning about Que's book "Macromedia ColdFusion MX Development" by
Eric Ladd. It's nothing against the book per se or Eric Ladd. Que,
though, to get in on the current MX version stuck an "MX" title on the
book which was written prior to MX. There is nothing at all about MX in
the book.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 3:36 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX and Java Books?


ColdFusion MX: The complete reference is out and I have it in my hands.
Of course, I tech edited it so I may have gotten it a little early, but
its the first MX book that was sent to me.

> Any published yet? (and available in Canada)
> 
> TIA folks
> 
> 
> AVIS IMPORTANT:
> ---
> Les informations contenues dans le present document et ses pieces
jointes sont strictement confidentielles et reservees a l'usage de la
(des) personne(s) a qui il est adresse. Si vous n'etes pas le
destinataire, soyez avise que toute divulgation, distribution, copie, ou
autre utilisation de ces informations est strictement prohibee.  Si vous
avez recu ce document par erreur, veuillez s'il vous plait communiquer
immediatement avec l'expediteur et detruire ce document sans en faire de
copie sous quelque forme.
> 
> WARNING:
> ---
> The information contained in this document and attachments is
confidential and intended only for the person(s) named above.  If you
are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or any other use of the information
is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this document by mistake,
please notify the sender immediately and destroy this document and
attachments without making any copy of any kind.
> 
> 
> 

__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFMX and Java Books?

[Hal Helms]

I wrote the foreword for Java for ColdFusion Developers. I thought Eben
did a fantastic job on the book.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Massimo, Tiziana e Federica [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 5:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX and Java Books?


"Stacy Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
erce
com...
> Any published yet? (and available in Canada)

I am waiting for two of them:

Reality ColdFusion: J2EE Integration
by Ben Forta, Drew Falkman, Charles Arehart, Bonnie Plottner, Kristian
Cibulskis Paperback - 504 pages (September 2002) Macromedia Press
ISBN: 0321129482
Java for Coldfusion Developers
by Eben Hewitt
Paperback - 600 pages (November 2002)
Prentice Hall
ISBN: 0130461806

Massimo



__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Best Practices

[Hal Helms]

Reminds me of those great lines of M.A. Jackson:

Rules of Optimization:
Rule 1: Don't do it.
Rule 2 (for experts only): Don't do it yet.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Best Practices


On Friday, August 16, 2002, at 12:25 , Douglas Brown wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello
> 
> 
> Execution Time
>
> 811 milliseconds
> Compared to
>  len(myString)>Hello
> Execution Time 370 milliseconds

First off, doing output kinda skews the results. I changed your code -
see 
below - to just do a string assignment in the if in the loop and timed
it 
on CFMX with loop set to 1 instead of 1000:

Execution Time 224 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 192 milliseconds
Execution Time 187 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 194 milliseconds
Execution Time 182 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 177 milliseconds
Execution Time 199 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 189 milliseconds
Execution Time 190 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 182 milliseconds
Execution Time 188 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 204 milliseconds
Execution Time 189 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 200 milliseconds
Execution Time 186 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 193 milliseconds
Execution Time 187 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 184 milliseconds
Execution Time 186 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 181 milliseconds

A negligible difference between the two comparisons...

Here's the modified code:







Execution Time #getTickCount()-k# milliseconds
Compared to 
  Execution Time #getTickCount()-k# milliseconds

Now, given there is almost no difference between the times, what is the 
justification for preferring the more cryptic code over the simpler
code?

I also tried it with the apparently more common len(trim(myString)) and 
got almost identical results (with the loop limit set to 10 this
time)
:

Execution Time 1984 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 1938 milliseconds
Execution Time 1970 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 1884 milliseconds
Execution Time 1930 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 1949 milliseconds
Execution Time 1934 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 1869 milliseconds
Execution Time 1894 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 1858 milliseconds
Execution Time 2014 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 1843 milliseconds
Execution Time 1891 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 1849 milliseconds
Execution Time 1909 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 1859 milliseconds
Execution Time 1899 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 1856 milliseconds
Execution Time 1928 milliseconds
Compared to Execution Time 1847 milliseconds

Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood


__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Any Fusebox and CFMX issues?

[Hal Helms]

Sean, I'm working on a from-the-ground-up rewrite of Fusebox based
around CFCs. I appreciate your thoughts on FB. Once inside a community,
it's sometimes hard to see things without that lens and constructive
criticism such as you offered is greatly beneficial and even, sometimes,
appreciated!

;-)

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 2:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Any Fusebox and CFMX issues?


On Tuesday, August 20, 2002, at 10:47 , Les Mizzell wrote:
> Any issues I should be aware of, or changes between CF4.5/5 to MX that

> I need to be aware of in relation to Fusebox?

I don't know if anyone has addressed performance issues with the Fusebox

architecture on CFMX but here are some of my thoughts about Fusebox
itself:

http://www.corfield.org/coldfusion.phtml?cfsection=coldfusion/fusebox

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood


__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Any Fusebox and CFMX issues?

[Hal Helms]

Well, I do know a good *new* Fusebox book published by techspedition...

Les, this is just my own personal thing. It may or may not be approved
by the Fusebox folks. I wanted to take a fresh look at development.
"Beginner's mind" I think the Buddhists call it.

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Les Mizzell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 3:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Any Fusebox and CFMX issues?


:> Sean, I'm working on a from-the-ground-up rewrite of Fusebox based :>
around CFCs.


Jezz, so I need to throw my old Fusebox book out and wait on a new one,
huh?


Les


__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Any Fusebox and CFMX issues?

[Hal Helms]

I agree with you, Sean, and that's where I'm headed. I want to leverage
the power of CFCs and open up the power of working with objects to
CFers. As such, I'm starting with a blank slate. 

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Any Fusebox and CFMX issues?


On Tuesday, August 20, 2002, at 01:56 , Patrick McElhaney wrote:
> No, not at all. If Fusebox was ported to CFCs, it would all be 
> behind-the-scenes stuff. The main reason to port to CFCs is that it 
> would give us a pretty good performance boost. The two books out now 
> would still be applicable and current Fusebox apps would work just 
> fine with Hal's CFC implementation.

But the *real* benefits will come from Fusebox 4(?) which fully embraces

CFCs for user code...

Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood


__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Any Fusebox and CFMX issues?

[Hal Helms]

Sean, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that
you've never used Fusebox on any sizeable project (maybe not at all?).
I'm not arguing whether you're right or wrong, but question the basis of
the claim that Fusebox doesn't scale. 

On the point that it doesn't leverage CFMX - I agree, but then how could
it? It was designed a year prior to CFMX. Maybe it would be more prudent
(though arguably less fun) to be more charitable and see what the FB
community comes up with?

Hal Helms
Preorder "Discovering ColdFusion Components (CFCs)" at
www.techspedition.com

-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 5:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Any Fusebox and CFMX issues?


(Sheesh, I spend the morning in a two-hour vendor presentation and
there's 
nearly 200 emails on CF-Talk!)

On Wednesday, August 21, 2002, at 03:17 , Benoit Hediard wrote:
> I am very curious to see how Fusebox is going to evolve with CFCs.

Me too!

> Because, right now, I am not convinced that Fusebox is very well 
> adapted
> to
> CFMX applications...

I agree. FB3 - even as a set of concepts - fails to leverage any of the 
power of CFMX and, because of the way FB3 requires you to structure your

CF app, makes it hard to do so.

> It has quickly become a very mature and proven framework for building 
> high-end CF applications.

I disagree. FB does not scale. Even some of the FB advocates admit that.

There is a natural ceiling of project size and complexity beyond which
FB 
and FLiP (the FB lifecycle) just can't be realistically applied.

> Now, with MX, ColdFusion has entered into the J2EE universe and native

> component-based architectures.

Well, no, not by the traditional definition of "component-based 
architectures".

> So from now on, I think it would be more logical to use standard J2EE
> design
> patterns and similar coding syntax

As I've said many times, the "standard J2EE design patterns" (see Sun's 
web site) are *not* all suitable for CFMX and it is short-sighted to 
attempt to blindly apply them.

Note: I'm an advocate of "Design Patterns" in general - and the 'Gang Of

Four' book is a good starting point - and *general* design patterns can 
(and should) be applied to CFMX. The J2EE patterns are too J2EE-specific

to apply to CFMX (and, indeed, they are mainly to workaround problems
with 
the J2EE architecture in the first place!).

> Fusebox and its "circuit" philosophy is not a J2EE design pattern, MVC

> is the "de facto" J2EE design pattern.

No, MVC is a technology-independent design pattern. In fact, it's a set
of 
general design patterns - more of a paradigm. Implementing MVC in J2EE
is 
pretty much what led to Sun's J2EE patterns in the first place.

> Thanks to CFCs, the new Taglib mecanism () and the improved 
> UDF lib, you can pretty easily apply MVC with CFMX :

Yes, CFMX makes it much easier to apply MVC.

> - CF Pages + Taglib for the View layer (or Flash MX),

Yes, that seems to be the most common way to implement the View.

> - CF scripts for the Controller layer,

Or CFCs (my preference).

> - CFCs for the Model layer.

Yes, CFCs are very good for the Model layer.

> In my opinion, it is more intuitive, simple and elegant than the 
> "circuit-based" design pattern of Fusebox.

I agree.

> Some people have tried to add MVC to Fusebox.

Some people have tried to add OO constructs to Functional Languages. And

failed because it's not a good match. I don't believe FB does a good job

of addressing the Model portion of applications (which is why it doesn't

scale to complex projects, in my opinion).

I've blogged your MVCF page and will review and comment on it in more 
detail in due course. I think it's a really good starting point.

"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood


__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

Dave,

There are two books coming out on Fusebox that should help to alleviate
the lack of available information on exactly what Fusebox is. John
Quarto and I wrote one called "Discovering Fusebox 3" and Jeff
Peters/Nat Papovich wrote one for New Riders. That will help people who
want to find out for themselves what Fusebox is all about.

Hal Helms

-Original Message-
From: Tim Heald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


It's coming.

Tim Heald
ACP/CCFD
Application Development
www.schoollink.net

-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


> > Fusebox just tells you how to organize your code
>
> Me thinks it's time you learn more about Fusebox if simple code 
> organization is what you think it's all about. That's an old wives 
> tale that seems to live on...and on...and on...

It may be a slight oversimplification, but it's a useful one. So, you've
got the ability to build "circuits", and relationships between those
circuits. To me, largely, that boils down to how you organize your code
within files. Now, there's nothing wrong with that - it doesn't hurt
anything, in the grand scheme of things.

My problem with it is as it's always been - it doesn't address the big
issues. How do you partition your application logic? What logic are you
moving to the database? (Or, with CF MX, what logic are you going to
move to a middle tier?) What logic are you moving to the client? How are
you minimizing the amount of work done at runtime? Frankly, if your
biggest problem is "how do I make this piece of CF code interact with
that piece", take the rest of the day off.

As for learning more about Fusebox, I've never been able to find a
definitive, single source for documentation. Why is that? I mean,
there's a sample app, there's a bunch of bits and pieces of help docs,
but there's no standard - no RFC or the like - no one single
authoritative document like there is with any similar initiative. It
seems to be a bit vague in that respect. Contrast that with the RFC for
HTML, or any other standard, which while it may be stultifyingly boring,
is both adequate and complete.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444



__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

Dave, 

I just wrote a newsletter on this that will be sent out tomorrow AM. (If
you're interested, you can sign up at www.halhelms.com under
NEWSLETTERS). To put it in a nutshell, the argument that CFMX - and
especially CFCs - will make Fusebox obsolete doesn't strike me as valid
- or rather, it strikes me as "proving too much". CFCs are simple
objects compared to the ones available in Smalltalk or Java, yet Java
still needs Struts and, I argue, CFMX will still need Fusebox. 

Hal

-Original Message-
From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:46 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


> Dave,
>
> There are two books coming out on Fusebox that should help to 
> alleviate the lack of available information on exactly what Fusebox 
> is. John Quarto and I wrote one called "Discovering Fusebox 3" and 
> Jeff Peters/Nat Papovich wrote one for New Riders. That will help 
> people who want to find out for themselves what Fusebox is all about.
>

Hal,

My question becomes this though: With the advent of CF MX, specifically
CFCs, will your books and any others on FB3 be relevant in a couple
months? I understand (having been on the fusebox mailing list) that
there's more to fusebox than just the framework (prototyping, devnotes,
etc.), but it seems to me that the core Fusebox files will pretty much
be outdated by the time your books hit the shelves.

Not the same Dave, but a Dave nonetheless!

__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

We won't flame you, Matt. The Fusebox list is the list of Much Love. ;-)


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:46 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


It is a mailing list for, well, CF gurus. I really don't see how it
would be effective for me to join a Fusebox list. I can see it now,
getting flamed by hundreds of people who don't know much about
programming because I pointed out the obviousness of the truth. <--
Matrix line ;)

Ever wonder how many top notch programmers hang out on the Fusebox list?
Ever wonder how many top notch programmers hang out on design patterns
mailing lists? Ever wonder why that is?

-Matt

> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:38 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> 
> > CFGURU as well as various other lists.
> 
> 
> What is CFGURU? For debates on Fusebox, the actual Fusebox lists would

> likely be your best bet on getting educated information about it.
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> 
> 

__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

I agree there's no formal specification, Dave. We're all working
developers and though people contribute enormously to spreading Fusebox,
we haven't created a formal spec. That may come at some point, but most
of our efforts are focused on helping people learn use Fusebox to
achieve successful software projects.

In response to your question to Steve, Tim Heald asked us to respond to
some Fusebox talk on the CF-List. I'm happy to try to help, but I know
that some folks have an animus against Fusebox that I can't help with.
In short, if I can offer info, I will but I respect your time too much
to waste it trying to convert you. Besides, my take on this is that
we're all in this together, Fuseboxers and non-Fuseboxers alike. We
share a common goal and a common love for creative programming. A lot of
people have found Fusebox helpful; some people don't. Let a thousand
flowers bloom, as the Chinese say.

-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:54 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


> > > There are two books coming out on Fusebox that should help to 
> > > alleviate the lack of available information on exactly what 
> > > Fusebox is. John Quarto and I wrote one called "Discovering 
> > > Fusebox 3" and Jeff Peters/Nat Papovich wrote one for New Riders. 
> > > That will help people who want to find out for themselves what 
> > > Fusebox is all about.
> >
> > Well, hi, Hal!
> >
> > That's nice and all, but where's the definitive
> > specification? I don't have to shell out for that, do 
> > I? It doesn't have to be stimulating reading, it
> > just has to be a specification.
> 
> http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=learn.specification
> 
> CF and PHP are there, JSP is coming pretty soon.

Well, hi to you too Steve! What did they do, ring the alarm bell at
fusebox.org?

I went there, before posting the previous post, and there's nothing
there which is a specification. There are some implementations, there's
some documentation, but no specification in the formal sense.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444


__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

I certainly wouldn't want to do that any more than you would, Matt. I'm
not sure what you're referring to, though.

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


Indeed, more power to you for helping people. But, do you have to use
common programming terms incorrectly? Showing people techniques is one
thing, but to show a technique and pass it off as something it is not,
certainly isn't helpful the person or the community in general.

-Matt

> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:12 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> 
> I agree there's no formal specification, Dave. We're all working 
> developers and though people contribute enormously to spreading
Fusebox,
> we haven't created a formal spec. That may come at some point, but
most
> of our efforts are focused on helping people learn use Fusebox to 
> achieve successful software projects.
> 
> In response to your question to Steve, Tim Heald asked us to respond
to
> some Fusebox talk on the CF-List. I'm happy to try to help, but I know

> that some folks have an animus against Fusebox that I can't help with.

> In short, if I can offer info, I will but I respect your time too much

> to waste it trying to convert you. Besides, my take on this is that 
> we're all in this together, Fuseboxers and non-Fuseboxers alike. We 
> share a common goal and a common love for creative programming. A lot
of
> people have found Fusebox helpful; some people don't. Let a thousand 
> flowers bloom, as the Chinese say.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:54 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> 
> 
> > > > There are two books coming out on Fusebox that should help to 
> > > > alleviate the lack of available information on exactly what 
> > > > Fusebox is. John Quarto and I wrote one called "Discovering 
> > > > Fusebox 3" and Jeff Peters/Nat Papovich wrote one for New
Riders.
> > > > That will help people who want to find out for themselves what 
> > > > Fusebox is all about.
> > >
> > > Well, hi, Hal!
> > >
> > > That's nice and all, but where's the definitive specification? I 
> > > don't have to shell out for that, do I? It doesn't have to be 
> > > stimulating reading, it just has to be a specification.
> >
> > http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=learn.specification
> >
> > CF and PHP are there, JSP is coming pretty soon.
> 
> Well, hi to you too Steve! What did they do, ring the alarm bell at 
> fusebox.org?
> 
> I went there, before posting the previous post, and there's nothing 
> there which is a specification. There are some implementations,
there's
> some documentation, but no specification in the formal sense.
> 
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
> 
> 
> 

__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

Well, then, we share a good many of the same ideas, Dave! I don't view
Fusebox as a faith at all, true or otherwise. I think we've seen far too
much in the last six months of ardent believers convinced of the
rightness of their cause. No matter the cause, they always produce the
same horrible results. That's why I'm not here to convert anyone to
anything. Indeed, if I'm urging anything at all, it's for people to come
to their own conclusions-another thing we agree on.

I have had quite the opposite of your experience-I find that Fusebox
tends to help developers focus on the forest and NOT on the trees, but
experience, too, is something that just can't be argued with. I
mentioned the word, "animus", not because I feel that you don't get it,
but because some people seem to go out of their way to attack Fusebox
with the same fury of creationists attacking evolution. In both cases,
I'm the one who just doesn't "get it".

-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:34 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


> In response to your question to Steve, Tim Heald asked us to
> respond to some Fusebox talk on the CF-List.

I was kidding about the alarm bell thing! "To the Fusemobile!"

> I'm happy to try to help, but I know that some folks have
> an animus against Fusebox that I can't help with.

Well, frankly, one of my gripes about Fusebox is that, whenever someone
voices an objection, it's framed as "animus" - an attack against the one
true faith. I'm not trying to convert anyone one way or another; my
sole, though oft repeated, objection is that Fusebox developers tend to
miss the forest for the trees. To a certain degree, I blame Fusebox for
this. You could argue that this isn't the fault of Fusebox, or that I'm
mischaracterizing Fusebox by making this argument, but in the end, the
response to my arguments tends to be "you just don't get it, Dave". I
realize that you personally have never made this argument, and I'm
probably being unfair in throwing this back at you, but there you have
it.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444


__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

Yes, you raise a good point, Matt. Things were a bit fuzzy early on
because we were trying to implement a framework and a methodology. We've
tried to divide these into different things now to be more precise. 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:38 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


Since I first saw Fusebox, its web site as well as some of its
proponents like Steve and Nat have termed it as among other things, an
architecture, an application framework, a methodology, and more recently
a standard. About the only term remotely related to Fusebox is
methodology.

-Matt

> -Original Message-
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:24 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> 
> I certainly wouldn't want to do that any more than you would, Matt.
I'm
> not sure what you're referring to, though.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:16 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> 
> 
> Indeed, more power to you for helping people. But, do you have to use 
> common programming terms incorrectly? Showing people techniques is one

> thing, but to show a technique and pass it off as something it is not,

> certainly isn't helpful the person or the community in general.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:12 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> >
> > I agree there's no formal specification, Dave. We're all working 
> > developers and though people contribute enormously to spreading
> Fusebox,
> > we haven't created a formal spec. That may come at some point, but
> most
> > of our efforts are focused on helping people learn use Fusebox to 
> > achieve successful software projects.
> >
> > In response to your question to Steve, Tim Heald asked us to respond
> to
> > some Fusebox talk on the CF-List. I'm happy to try to help, but I
know
> 
> > that some folks have an animus against Fusebox that I can't help
with.
> 
> > In short, if I can offer info, I will but I respect your time too
much
> 
> > to waste it trying to convert you. Besides, my take on this is that 
> > we're all in this together, Fuseboxers and non-Fuseboxers alike. We 
> > share a common goal and a common love for creative programming. A
lot
> of
> > people have found Fusebox helpful; some people don't. Let a thousand

> > flowers bloom, as the Chinese say.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:54 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> >
> >
> > > > > There are two books coming out on Fusebox that should help to 
> > > > > alleviate the lack of available information on exactly what 
> > > > > Fusebox is. John Quarto and I wrote one called "Discovering 
> > > > > Fusebox 3" and Jeff Peters/Nat Papovich wrote one for New
> Riders.
> > > > > That will help people who want to find out for themselves what

> > > > > Fusebox is all about.
> > > >
> > > > Well, hi, Hal!
> > > >
> > > > That's nice and all, but where's the definitive specification? I

> > > > don't have to shell out for that, do I? It doesn't have to be 
> > > > stimulating reading, it just has to be a specification.
> > >
> > > http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=learn.specification
> > >
> > > CF and PHP are there, JSP is coming pretty soon.
> >
> > Well, hi to you too Steve! What did they do, ring the alarm bell at 
> > fusebox.org?
> >
> > I went there, before posting the previous post, and there's nothing 
> > there which is a specification. There are some implementations,
> there's
> > some documentation, but no specification in the formal sense.
> >
> > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> > http://www.figleaf.com/
> > voice: (202) 797-5496
> > fax: (202) 797-5444
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Hatfields and the McCoys

[Hal Helms]

Well, unless you've implemented the MilkBessy design pattern, there's no
point in talking with you!!

-Original Message-
From: Critz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:07 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Hatfields and the McCoys


hey can ya'll hold off on the rest of the debatin' I gots ta get my
sleep, and it would make ma simple life much easier iffin I aint gots
alot o dem emails to read thru in the mornin (after i milk bessy o
course) meybe weze can all start gain after 8? what say?

-- 
Best regards,

Critter, MMCP
Certified ColdFusion Developer
 
Crit[s2k] - 


__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

Jennifer, I'm unclear about the reference to URL vars, which Fusebox is
completely agnostic about. It does view the application as a single
entity that responds to different method requests, though. Those method
requests come to the fusebox as variables. Is that what you don't like?

-Original Message-
From: Jennifer Larkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


Lets assume that it teaches people incorrect definitions for standard 
terminology. This is Matt's viewpoint. Since I am familiar with Matt, I
can 
tell you that the guy *does* know what he's talking about. He doesn't 
always say it in the most understandable or helpful way, nor does he 
explain things that he thinks you should already know, but he knows what

he's talking about. So for the sake of answering your question, let's 
assume that none of us question the validity of that part of Matt's
stance.

That does affect it's quality and may affect it's usefulness. You see,
when 
you learn the weird definition, you aren't able to communicate
effectively 
with people who know the standard definition. If two people on the same 
project are unable to communicate, that does affect productivity, making
it 
less useful than it would be if it used the correct definitions. In this

case, knowing the standard definitions might help you become a better 
programmer, which means that you are being done a disservice by being
told 
the wrong definition. Again, it would therefore be more useful to you if
it 
gave you the correct definition.

It certainly doesn't change how FuseBox works, but that doesn't preclude
a 
change in usefulness.

And about getting around the url variable problem. The way I described,
I 
don't have to get around the URL variable problem but I still get the 
usefulness. Creating what I see as a problem and then solving it is not
as 
good as not creating the problem in the first place.

At 12:49 AM 4/30/02 -0400, you wrote:
>So whether some people call it a methodology, others a framework, 
>others a
>standard, are you saying that changes it's
>usefulness?
>
>Steve
>
>Matt Liotta wrote:
>
> > Since I first saw Fusebox, its web site as well as some of its 
> > proponents like Steve and Nat have termed it as among other things, 
> > an architecture, an application framework, a methodology, and more 
> > recently a standard. About the only term remotely related to Fusebox

> > is methodology.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:24 PM
> > > To: CF-Talk
> > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> > >
> > > I certainly wouldn't want to do that any more than you would, 
> > > Matt.
> > I'm
> > > not sure what you're referring to, though.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:16 AM
> > > To: CF-Talk
> > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed, more power to you for helping people. But, do you have to 
> > > use common programming terms incorrectly? Showing people 
> > > techniques is one thing, but to show a technique and pass it off 
> > > as something it is not, certainly isn't helpful the person or the 
> > > community in general.
> > >
> > > -Matt
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:12 PM
> > > > To: CF-Talk
> > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> > > >
> > > > I agree there's no formal specification, Dave. We're all working

> > > > developers and though people contribute enormously to spreading
> > > Fusebox,
> > > > we haven't created a formal spec. That may come at some point, 
> > > > but
> > > most
> > > > of our efforts are focused on helping people learn use Fusebox 
> > > > to achieve successful software projects.
> > > >
> > > > In response to your question to Steve, Tim Heald asked us to 
> > > > respond
> > > to
> > > > some Fusebox talk on the CF-List. I'm happy to try to help, but 
> > > > I
> > know
> > >
> > > > that some folks have an animus against Fusebox that I can't help
> > with.
> > >
> > > > In short, if I can 

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

The philosopher/mathemetician Bertrand Russell once told his
collaborator, Alfred North Whitehead: "This issue cannot be resolved.
The problem is that I am simple-minded and you are muddle-headed."

Dave, I think what my muddle-headed friend, Steve, means is that the
Fusebox community has produced an architectural framework ("Fusebox")
and a methodology ("FLiP") that are quite independent of each other.
Because we only recently made the separation of terms (for the excellent
reasons you outline), some people say "Fusebox" when they're talking
about FLiP and the other way 'round.

-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:32 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


> Sure, terminology is important but it is far too often
> treated as the most important thing and it's not. If 
> you said:
> 
> "hand me the hammer"
> vs
> "hand me that tool with the wooden handle and the metal
> smasher for banging nails"
> 
> I'm human, i'd figure it out.

That's fine, conversationally. Scale that up across a larger and larger
group, and you'd have bigger and bigger problems. The If nothing else,
you'd get really tired of saying "hand me that tool with the wooden
handle and the metal smasher for banging nails" over and over again. The
dumb literalists in the group wouldn't understand that you meant to also
include the tool with the fiberglass hammer, and the tack driver, and so
on.

> The name "hammer" is not the important part. My association
> to your description is the important part, terminology just 
> shortens that description. Some people call Fusebox a 
> methodology because it's a method of building their software,
> fine. Whereas others call it a framework, because the core 
> files offer a framework for managing their code, that's fine 
> too. No one is going to get a full definition of Fusebox 
> from a single word, so why get so hung up on that?

This sounds like the "Humpty Dumpty" argument - a word means exactly
what you want it to mean, no more and no less! The problem here is that,
if someone asks you about your methodology, and you tell them about your
framework, everyone will be confused, because they are different
concepts. If you want a word to mean everything, it'll mean nothing in
the end. Fusebox - it's a dessert topping AND a floor wax!

I'm hung up on that, as you put it, because in my experience so many CF
developers think that as long as they adhere to the Fusebox "standard",
to the extent that it is a standard, all their design problems are
solved, and everything else is a "simple matter of coding". Of course,
also in my experience, this turns out not to be the case.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444

__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

That's OK. If you're muddle-headed, I must be simple minded. 

-Original Message-
From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:55 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)


If i had a nickel every time i got muddle-headed.

wait, that would only be one nickel, i've been muddle-headed ever since.

Steve

Hal Helms wrote:

> The philosopher/mathemetician Bertrand Russell once told his 
> collaborator, Alfred North Whitehead: "This issue cannot be resolved. 
> The problem is that I am simple-minded and you are muddle-headed."
>
> Dave, I think what my muddle-headed friend, Steve, means is that the 
> Fusebox community has produced an architectural framework ("Fusebox") 
> and a methodology ("FLiP") that are quite independent of each other. 
> Because we only recently made the separation of terms (for the 
> excellent reasons you outline), some people say "Fusebox" when they're

> talking about FLiP and the other way 'round.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:32 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
>
> > Sure, terminology is important but it is far too often treated as 
> > the most important thing and it's not. If you said:
> >
> > "hand me the hammer"
> > vs
> > "hand me that tool with the wooden handle and the metal smasher for 
> > banging nails"
> >
> > I'm human, i'd figure it out.
>
> That's fine, conversationally. Scale that up across a larger and 
> larger group, and you'd have bigger and bigger problems. The If 
> nothing else, you'd get really tired of saying "hand me that tool with

> the wooden handle and the metal smasher for banging nails" over and 
> over again. The dumb literalists in the group wouldn't understand that

> you meant to also include the tool with the fiberglass hammer, and the

> tack driver, and so on.
>
> > The name "hammer" is not the important part. My association to your 
> > description is the important part, terminology just shortens that 
> > description. Some people call Fusebox a methodology because it's a 
> > method of building their software, fine. Whereas others call it a 
> > framework, because the core files offer a framework for managing 
> > their code, that's fine too. No one is going to get a full 
> > definition of Fusebox from a single word, so why get so hung up on 
> > that?
>
> This sounds like the "Humpty Dumpty" argument - a word means exactly 
> what you want it to mean, no more and no less! The problem here is 
> that, if someone asks you about your methodology, and you tell them 
> about your framework, everyone will be confused, because they are 
> different concepts. If you want a word to mean everything, it'll mean 
> nothing in the end. Fusebox - it's a dessert topping AND a floor wax!
>
> I'm hung up on that, as you put it, because in my experience so many 
> CF developers think that as long as they adhere to the Fusebox 
> "standard", to the extent that it is a standard, all their design 
> problems are solved, and everything else is a "simple matter of 
> coding". Of course, also in my experience, this turns out not to be 
> the case.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
>
> 

__
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

att Liotta wrote:
> >
> > > Since I first saw Fusebox, its web site as well as some of its 
> > > proponents like Steve and Nat have termed it as among other 
> > > things, an architecture, an application framework, a methodology, 
> > > and more recently a standard. About the only term remotely related

> > > to Fusebox
>
> > > is methodology.
> > >
> > > -Matt
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:24 PM
> > > > To: CF-Talk
> > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> > > >
> > > > I certainly wouldn't want to do that any more than you would, 
> > > > Matt.
> > > I'm
> > > > not sure what you're referring to, though.
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:16 AM
> > > > To: CF-Talk
> > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, more power to you for helping people. But, do you have 
> > > > to use common programming terms incorrectly? Showing people 
> > > > techniques is one thing, but to show a technique and pass it off

> > > > as something it is not, certainly isn't helpful the person or 
> > > > the community in general.
> > > >
> > > > -Matt
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:12 PM
> > > > > To: CF-Talk
> > > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree there's no formal specification, Dave. We're all 
> > > > > working
>
> > > > > developers and though people contribute enormously to 
> > > > > spreading
> > > > Fusebox,
> > > > > we haven't created a formal spec. That may come at some point,

> > > > > but
> > > > most
> > > > > of our efforts are focused on helping people learn use Fusebox

> > > > > to achieve successful software projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > In response to your question to Steve, Tim Heald asked us to 
> > > > > respond
> > > > to
> > > > > some Fusebox talk on the CF-List. I'm happy to try to help, 
> > > > > but I
> > > know
> > > >
> > > > > that some folks have an animus against Fusebox that I can't 
> > > > > help
> > > with.
> > > >
> > > > > In short, if I can offer info, I will but I respect your time 
> > > > > too
> > > much
> > > >
> > > > > to waste it trying to convert you. Besides, my take on this is

> > > > > that we're all in this together, Fuseboxers and non-Fuseboxers

> > > > > alike. We share a common goal and a common love for creative 
> > > > > programming. A
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > people have found Fusebox helpful; some people don't. Let a 
> > > > > thousand flowers bloom, as the Chinese say.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:54 PM
> > > > > To: CF-Talk
> > > > > Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are two books coming out on Fusebox that should 
> > > > > > > > help
>
> > > > > > > > to alleviate the lack of available information on 
> > > > > > > > exactly what Fusebox is. John Quarto and I wrote one 
> > > > > > > > called "Discovering Fusebox 3" and Jeff Peters/Nat 
> > > > > > > > Papovich wrote
>
> > > > > > > > one for New
> > > > Riders.
> > > > > > > > That will help people who want to find out for 
> > > > > > > > themselves what Fusebox is all about.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, hi, Hal!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's nice and all, but where's the definitive 
> > > > > > > specification? I don't have to shell out for that, do I? 
> > > > > > > It doesn't have to be stimulating reading, it just has to 
> > > > > > > be a specification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=learn.specificat
> > > > > > io
> > > > > > n
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CF and PHP are there, JSP is coming pretty soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, hi to you too Steve! What did they do, ring the alarm 
> > > > > bell
>
> > > > > at fusebox.org?
> > > > >
> > > > > I went there, before posting the previous post, and there's 
> > > > > nothing there which is a specification. There are some 
> > > > > implementations,
> > > > there's
> > > > > some documentation, but no specification in the formal sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/
> > > > > voice: (202) 797-5496
> > > > > fax: (202) 797-5444
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)

[Hal Helms]

 heard a saying once
>
>  "LSD and Linux BSD both came from Berkeley, this cannot be a 
> coincidence"
>
>
>
>
> Douglas Brown
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jennifer Larkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:50 PM
> Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
>
>
> > Living in California, where it's 11:50. Although I do have to
> get up
> > awfully early to take public transportation to Berkeley, so I
> should be
> > going to bed soon.
> >
> > At 02:25 AM 4/30/02 -0400, you wrote:
> > >I do have to say this, irregardless of what "side" you may be
> on where this
> > >is concerned, I have to admire the dedication that all of you
> have for
> > >ColdFusion.  Here it is 3 am in the morning, and still going
> strong.  I know
> > >I am working on the MM XML Feed thing using CFMX.  What,
aside
> from this
> > >conversation keeps the rest of you up this evening?
> > >
> > >Tim Heald
> > >ACP/CCFD
> > >Application Development
> > >www.schoollink.net
> > >
> > >-Original Message-
> > >From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:23 AM
> > >To: CF-Talk
> > >Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX)
> > >
> > >
> > >Jennifer, I'm unclear about the reference to URL vars, which
> Fusebox is
> > >completely agnostic about. It does view the application as a
> single
> > >entity that responds to different method requests, though.
> Those method
> > >requests come to the fusebox as variables. Is that what you
> don't like?
> > >


__
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more 
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

CFNorth

[Hal Helms]

If you're going to be anywhere near Toronto this weekend and would like
to find out more about Fusebox, come over to the big cfnorth conference
(www.cfnorth.com). There's an entire track on Fusebox and there's a
session showing a pretty great tool for use with Fusebox called Adalon
from Synthis (www.synthis.com).

Hal

__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3

[Hal Helms]

I use it in child circuits all the time without a problem. On a possibly
related note, I'm wondering why are you using ../ notation to get back
to the home circuit?

-Original Message-
From: heirophant mm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 1:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3


Hi everyone,

I'm using the QuerySim custom tag (find it at www.halhelms.com) to
assist in developing a Fusebox 3 site. When I use it in a template that
I am viewing directly rather than through the Fusebox ( as in
"/index.cfm?fuseaction=circuit.fuse"), it works fine. Also, QuerySim
works fine when calling it through the Fusebox, if it is in the home
circuit.

However, when QuerySim is called in a template used by a child circuit,
something wierd happens. I have found that the value of
thistag.generatedcontent, which would hold the query contents i pass, is
wiped out. Therefore, QuerySim has nothing to make a query out of.

I know that the proper place to be using QuerySim is when you're testing
individual fuses, especially before you have the "real" query fuses
written, so you can say that i'm using QuerySim improperly anyway by
using it within the fusebox itself. (in my defense, i have an acceptable
reason to be doing this in this case and its only temporary, but i wont
try to explain).

Anyway, I thought it was strange that the value thistag.generatedcontent
of a custom tag would be wiped out in that way. I have thoroughly tested
this and found that, indeed, it only happens when calling it within the
Fusebox, and only in a child circuit. I am afraid that this reveals some
sort of subtle problem with Fusebox itself! But I am probably (and
hopefully) wrong...

Mike Mertsock
Alfred University Web Team



Outgrown your current e-mail service?
Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL
PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3

[Hal Helms]

I just tried it out without problems. Here's what I have: A home circuit
with a "ShoppingCart" circuit beneath it (as well as some other ones).
In the FBX_Settings.cfm file of the ShoppingCart circuit, I 
a page that has a QuerySim, CartSummary, on it. Then, in the
FBX_Switch.cfm file for ShoppingCart, I respond to the fuseaction,
"display" by ing dsp_ShoppingCart.cfm, a file that
s the CartSummary recordset. It works without a hitch. Is this
the sort of thing that is failing for you?

-Original Message-
From: heirophant mm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 10:41 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3


I'm actually using the "#request.self#?fuseaction=#xfa.something#"
notation, i was just writing it in short hand by typing
"/index.cfm". That was confusing on my part, sorry.

I have looked into the problem a little more, and here is what i have
found. It seems that QuerySim, or any custom tag that uses
thistag.generatedcontent, will work fine if it's in a fuse included
through fbx_switch.cfm, in any circuit.

However, I have one template using QuerySim that i include through
fbx_settings.cfm. I have found that, when included through
fbx_settings.cfm, thistag.generatedcontent turns up empty, for ANY
custom tag i try to use. I also found that this happens in ANY circuit.

-Original Message-
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 13:30:35 -0400
From: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3
Message-ID: <000101c20411$e157ad90$c0d45c42@BigHal>

I use it in child circuits all the time without a problem. On a possibly
related note, I'm wondering why are you using ../ notation to get back
to the home circuit?

-Original Message-
From: heirophant mm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 1:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3


Hi everyone,

I'm using the QuerySim custom tag (find it at www.halhelms.com) to
assist in developing a Fusebox 3 site. When I use it in a template that
I am viewing directly rather than through the Fusebox ( as in
"/index.cfm?fuseaction=circuit.fuse"), it works fine. Also, QuerySim
works fine when calling it through the Fusebox, if it is in the home
circuit.

However, when QuerySim is called in a template used by a child circuit,
something wierd happens. I have found that the value of
thistag.generatedcontent, which would hold the query contents i pass, is
wiped out. Therefore, QuerySim has nothing to make a query out of.

I know that the proper place to be using QuerySim is when you're testing
individual fuses, especially before you have the "real" query fuses
written, so you can say that i'm using QuerySim improperly anyway by
using it within the fusebox itself. (in my defense, i have an acceptable
reason to be doing this in this case and its only temporary, but i wont
try to explain).

Anyway, I thought it was strange that the value thistag.generatedcontent
of a custom tag would be wiped out in that way. I have thoroughly tested
this and found that, indeed, it only happens when calling it within the
Fusebox, and only in a child circuit. I am afraid that this reveals some
sort of subtle problem with Fusebox itself! But I am probably (and
hopefully) wrong...

Mike Mertsock
Alfred University Web Team



Outgrown your current e-mail service?
Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL
PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in 
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3

[Hal Helms]

You might also try the core files available from techspedition.com and
see if the error reproduces.

-Original Message-
From: heirophant mm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 1:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3


That is exactly the problem. I am probably incorrectly using the fusebox
core files or some other part of the architecture. Or maybe theres some
subtle logic error I havent caught. Thanks anyway for your thoughts.

-Original Message-
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 12:06:48 -0400
From: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3
Message-ID: <000501c204cf$5781c920$c0d45c42@BigHal>

I just tried it out without problems. Here's what I have: A home circuit
with a "ShoppingCart" circuit beneath it (as well as some other ones).
In the FBX_Settings.cfm file of the ShoppingCart circuit, I 
a page that has a QuerySim, CartSummary, on it. Then, in the
FBX_Switch.cfm file for ShoppingCart, I respond to the fuseaction,
"display" by ing dsp_ShoppingCart.cfm, a file that
s the CartSummary recordset. It works without a hitch. Is this
the sort of thing that is failing for you?

-Original Message-
From: heirophant mm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 10:41 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3


I'm actually using the "#request.self#?fuseaction=#xfa.something#"
notation, i was just writing it in short hand by typing
"/index.cfm". That was confusing on my part, sorry.

I have looked into the problem a little more, and here is what i have
found. It seems that QuerySim, or any custom tag that uses
thistag.generatedcontent, will work fine if it's in a fuse included
through fbx_switch.cfm, in any circuit.

However, I have one template using QuerySim that i include through
fbx_settings.cfm. I have found that, when included through
fbx_settings.cfm, thistag.generatedcontent turns up empty, for ANY
custom tag i try to use. I also found that this happens in ANY circuit.

-Original Message-
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 13:30:35 -0400
From: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3
Message-ID: <000101c20411$e157ad90$c0d45c42@BigHal>

I use it in child circuits all the time without a problem. On a possibly
related note, I'm wondering why are you using ../ notation to get back
to the home circuit?

-Original Message-
From: heirophant mm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 1:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: QuerySim custom tag and Fusebox 3


Hi everyone,

I'm using the QuerySim custom tag (find it at www.halhelms.com) to
assist in developing a Fusebox 3 site. When I use it in a template that
I am viewing directly rather than through the Fusebox ( as in
"/index.cfm?fuseaction=circuit.fuse"), it works fine. Also, QuerySim
works fine when calling it through the Fusebox, if it is in the home
circuit.

However, when QuerySim is called in a template used by a child circuit,
something wierd happens. I have found that the value of
thistag.generatedcontent, which would hold the query contents i pass, is
wiped out. Therefore, QuerySim has nothing to make a query out of.

I know that the proper place to be using QuerySim is when you're testing
individual fuses, especially before you have the "real" query fuses
written, so you can say that i'm using QuerySim improperly anyway by
using it within the fusebox itself. (in my defense, i have an acceptable
reason to be doing this in this case and its only temporary, but i wont
try to explain).

Anyway, I thought it was strange that the value thistag.generatedcontent
of a custom tag would be wiped out in that way. I have thoroughly tested
this and found that, indeed, it only happens when calling it within the
Fusebox, and only in a child circuit. I am afraid that this reveals some
sort of subtle problem with Fusebox itself! But I am probably (and
hopefully) wrong...

Mike Mertsock
Alfred University Web Team



Outgrown your current e-mail service?
Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL
PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Big companies using CF

[Hal Helms]

That's right, Jamie. Rooms To Go is the nation's largest furniture retailer
and it's all CF & Fusebox.

Hal Helms

-Original Message-
From: Jamie Keane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:09 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Big companies using CF


I believe www.roomstogo.com is CF-based (and FuseBox-based to boot!).

--
Jamie Keane
Programmer
SolutionMasters, Inc.
9111 Monroe Rd., Suite 100
Charlotte, NC  28270
www.solutionmasters.com
704.563.5559 x 228  Voice
704.849.9291  Fax
-Original Message-
From: Todd Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Big companies using CF


>Autobytel.com
>
>You can also look here for a list:
>
>http://www.allaire.com/casestudies/index.cfm
>
>Todd Ashworth
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Joe Sheble aka Wizaerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 9:18 PM
>Subject: Big companies using CF
>
>
>| I know this is probably one of those discussions that turn up all the
time
>| on a mailing list such as this, and I apologize for bringing it up.  I
>have
>| a new IT Director starting at my company in the very near future who's a
>big
>| Microsoft fan, and thinks there's nothing better than ASP and/or C#
(which
>I
>| believe hasn't even been released yet, no?).
>|
>| When I told him that CF has been around for a long time, and some really
>big
>| companies use it, he doubted it.  I told him Amazon.com was using it (was
>I
>| right about this?).
>|
>| So anyway, I've agreed to compile a list of some of the bigger well known
>| internet comapnies using it, and would like some assistance.  What big
>time
>| comapnies are using CF for their pages?
>
>
>
>
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: (Admin) List status

[Hal Helms]

Thank you, Michael. You're providing a great service to the CF community.

Hal Helms
www.halhelms.com



-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 10:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: (Admin) List status


As you've seen in the last few days, the list has been going from blazingly
fast to being down for a few hours. I've traced the issue to a single
application; Lyris. I've been experimenting with merging the lists into a
Lyris news server and the results were generally good. The only problem
that's come up was that every now and again Lyris will totally die and take
down ALL network services on the box.
I've stopped using the Lyris server for now and will place it back up when I
have some better server based error handling for it. In addition, the memory
on the box has been doubled up to 512meg, which should help with the list
performance.
If there are any requests, suggestions or general complaints, please email
me directly and I'll do my best to deal with it. Thank you for your
patience.

Michael Dinowitz
Publisher: Fusion Authority weekly news alert
(www.fusionauthority.com/alert)
Listmaster: CF-Talk, CF-Jobs, Spectra-Talk, Jrun-Talk, etc.
(www.houseoffusion.com)
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Which schope? (Was: Re: Application.cfm)

[Hal Helms]

If you only need it on one page, I'd use the local variable scope called
"variables" (you can omit the prefix).

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com <http://www.ColdFusionTraining.com>  for
info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Todd Ashworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 11:29 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Which schope? (Was: Re: Application.cfm)


Just out of curiosity .. If you just need to set a variable for one page and
that variable only ever lives on that one page, which would be the better
scope, Variables, or Request, or does it matter?

Todd Ashworth

- Original Message -
From: "paul smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:59 AM
Subject: RE: Application.cfm


| Right!  Your application.cfm should have the following for each
| Request-scoped variable:
|
| 
| 
| etc
|
| That way your Request-scoped variables will contain a value and will be
| available to each page.
|
| If the value of your variable changes from page to page, then you really
| shouldn't put it in Request scope.
|
| best,  paul
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Complex expressions w/ cfswitch

[Hal Helms]

No, you can't do that. Complex expressions aren't allowed in . You'd
have to create a series of if/then statements.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com  for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Bud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Complex expressions w/ cfswitch


Howdy all.

OK, easy enough to do a simple expression using cfswitch.



Some Code


Some Other Code


Default Code



Which is basically if action is "this" do this, if action is "that"
do that. What about doing a more complex expression. Like if action
is "this" and isdefined('that')? Is there a way to use complex
expressions with cfswitch? Examples?

Thanks! :-D
--

Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.twcreations.com/
954.721.3452
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Removing dupes from list

[Hal Helms]

Scott, if you go to the Allaire tag gallery and search for "duplicate",
you'll see a couple of custom tags.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Scott Mulholland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 5:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Removing dupes from list


If i have a list like:

2,10,3,1,2,9,9,2

what is the easiest way to parse out the dupes to make the list:
2,10,3,1,9

??

Thanks,
Scott
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

Another free class

[Hal Helms]

I've completed another free class in the "Mastering Fusebox" series. This
one is "Fusebox Basics" and is available at www.halhelms.com.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Another debate

[Hal Helms]

I think this may be a Freudian slip: he really does mean "mute" -- as in "I
don't want to talk about it; my mind's already made up."

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com  for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Braver, Ben: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 1:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Another debate



Well, for one thing, your boss needs to brush up on his English, and learn
the difference between "mute" and "moot"


> -Original Message-
> From: Kelly Shepard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 9:14 AM
> To:   CF-Talk
> Subject:  Another debate
>
> The new boss has arrived in my department and of course he wants everyone
> to
> switch from the awesome and all mighty cold fusion to  PHP. We do need
> some other strengths in our department for those clients who don't want us
> to host their application or don't have cf on their server, but, he wants
> a
> complete switch.  Here is a glimpse into his last email:
>
> "It could be argued that both technologies have their strengths and
> weaknesses. However, in the corporate IT department, CF is usually not an
> option due to cost and security problems. I realize that changing
> perceptions and old habits are sometimes difficult, but necessary.
> Especially in our industry (high-tech).
>
> The need to deliberate the issue further is a mute point."
>
> Does anyone have any opinions on his security problems comment?  It seems
> that alliare is pretty good about getting patches up - or we have just
> been
> lucky and not had any problems.  And, would you agree that in the
> corporate
> IT department cf is "usually" not an option?
>
> Thanks in advance for any input.
>
>
>
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Websphere

[Hal Helms]

It's an IBM product that uses Java. It's integrated with IBM's Visual Age
for Java IDE.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 4:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Websphere


We have a client using websphere that we are doing some work for.  I have
never touched it. Anybody know what type of engine it is running.  Is it a
proprietary scripting language?  ANy help would be great.

Kevin Schmidt, Web Technology Manager
Allaire Certified Cold Fusion Developer
pwb inc.
integrated marketing communications
350 S. Main St., Suite 350
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
734.995.5000 (tel)
734.995.5002 (fax)
www.pwb.com
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: LOCKING revisited...

[Hal Helms]

I wonder, has anyone actually done any metrics on this to see if automatic
read locking imposes a penalty (that's the conventional wisdom) and if so,
how much of one?

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com  for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:05 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: LOCKING revisited...


You just did read locking by hand. Your code has one place where it accesses
an Application variable, and you properly surrounded it with a lock. If you
were to turn on automatic read locking of Application scope the server would
put a read lock around the expression application.myvariable for you and you
wouldn't have to do the lock manually.
In your example, it wouldn't really matter which way you chose, as it's only
ONE access to an Application variable on the whole page. In my example I
have between 10 and 100 accesses TO DIFFERENT Application variables on the
page, and would have to put that three line locked/access/unlock expression
around each one.

I am suggesting that EVEN IN YOUR EXAMPLE it will take longer for the server
to parse three tags and do a read lock than it would to parse ONE tag and do
a read lock (automatically).

At 10:51 AM 12/20/00 -0500, Evan Lavidor wrote:
>Are you saying that if I do the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>and then later on down the page I do the following:
>
>
>do something
>
>
>then I haven't solved the locking "issue"?  I thought that by setting my
>application variables to local variables within a lock, I could now
>reference the local variables with abandon and not have to worry about
>locking any more.  Is this not the case?!?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Evan
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 10:21 AM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: RE: LOCKING revisited...
>>
>>
>> No offense, but that is nonsense.
>> My Cold Fusion server is still multi-threaded and
>> multi-processed. It is still handling every incoming request at
>> the same time.
>> The only time it will act "single threaded" is when two requests
>> attempt to read an Application scope variable at the same time.
>> And guess what? That is exactly the same thing that will happen
>> if you DONT use automatic read locking, but properly use 
>> around your Application variables.
>>
>> Automatic read locking doesn't lock the entire page request,
>> (which would be single threading the entire server). It locks
>> read access around those variables that need it.
>>
>> This is not just an academic issue for me. I have a site running
>> with 10-100 reads from an Application structure on every page. To
>> make the code more readable, I am using automatic read locking
>> for Application scope variables instead of
>> #Application.myvar# tens or hundreds of times on
>> each page.
>>
>> On a related note, if I have automatic read locking enabled for
>> Application scope and I assign a local Variable to an Application
>> variable, it will essentially make a copy to the pointer. Is CF
>> smart enough then to automatically lock accesses to this local
>> Variables, which is pointing into Application space?
>>
>> < !--- automatic read locking is ON for Application variables --->
>> < cfset myvar = Application.bigvar>
>> < cfoutput> #myvar# < !--- <<<=== IS THIS
>> AUTOMATICALLY LOCKED?? --->
>>
>> At 02:13 PM 12/19/00 -0700, Richard Kern wrote:
>> >It was expressed before that turning this on via the server will
>> essentially
>> >drop your application to single thread mode, slowing down all
>> responses from
>> >the system.  Remember that CF is server side so doing this is
>> like knocking
>> >on the door and opening it for each request and then closing it before
>> >anyone else enters, no matter how many people are queued at the door.
>> >
>> >Richard Kern
>> >
>> >-Original Message-
>> >From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 1:16 PM
>> >To: CF-Talk
>> >Subject: LOCKING revisited...
>> >
>> >
>> >Ok, given that we all agree:
>> >
>> >** Access to shared variables should *ALWAYS* be locked **
>> >
>> >Then why on Earth shouldn't I just turn on Automatic Read Locking for
>> >Application (a

RE: Fusebox

[Hal Helms]

It's certainly true that there is no one, true methodology -- Fusebox or
anything else. That said, one of the main reasons for a methodology (at
least from my standpoint) is to make team development easier. A proprietary
methodology has an inherent limitation--every new team member has a learning
curve to go through. Unless the proprietary methodology has overwhelming
advantages, I think it makes much more sense to pick a popular one
(CFObjects, Fusebox, etc.) and work within that framework.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Michael She [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox


FuseBox is a methodology that is open to the public, thus adopted by others.

Some people might like it, others won't.  What you can do is designyour own
methodology... maybe picking up the best aspects from different programming
methodologies you've encountered in the past.  Programming methods are very
subjective as there is no true 'right' and only way.


At 02:22 PM 12/20/00 +, war ape you wrote:


>Whats the whole point of Fusebox?
>I don't see how it makes an application any less proprietary
>i i know it helps modularize an application for reuse, but how does it help
>make the application more understandable to other programmers?
>Most don't use fusebox, so right there its been made harder
>also i think it adds a dense layer of complexity to an application,
>basically adding another 10-15% work to the appllication.
>I don't see that it does much that could not be achieved with a
standardized
>naming convention.
>Sorry if i seem the philistine, but my mantra has always been simplicity,
>simplicity is what makes an application more accessible to later
programmers
>
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Recommended Chat Script

[Hal Helms]

that is a GREAT idea

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com  for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Michael She [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 11:27 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Recommended Chat Script


Hi All,


I think Allaire's Developer Gallery should start allowing users to rate the
different tags/scripts on the site.

In anycase, can anyone recommend a good chat script?  There are so many,
and lots of them do not have demo.  Preferrably the script is
freeware.  Thanks.
--
Michael She
I m a g i n e   C o m m u n i c a t i o n s
Company E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personal E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ UIN: #243466
Personal Homepage: http://www.michaelshe.com (Under Construction)
Imagine Communications: http://www.imagineer.net
PGP Fingerprint: 9A24 1DA9 39B8 0A0C C5ED 6E5D 45E9 075A 51CD 66A1
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox

[Hal Helms]

Yes, there's definitely that argument, Dave -- and it's a good one. Someone
once posted a question on the CFObjects forum, "If you're going to do OO,
what not just do Java?" I'm still waiting to hear a good answer.

I think CFObjects can be a good bridge for folks moving from CFML to a true
OO language such as Ruby or Java.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox


> I agree with Hal. The major problem with CFObjects is that you
> have to tackle the additiona learning curve of an OO methodology,
> *and* the documentation/sample-apps leave a lot to be desired for
> a person new to the methodology. If CFO only had a like Hal hawking
> it, it'd get a much wider notice :)

I'd argue that the major problem with CFObjects is something completely
different. I don't think tacking object-orientation onto CF - which is
pretty much a batch-processing environment - is such a great idea. If you
want to write OO code, you'd be better served with an OO language.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox

[Hal Helms]

Michael, while Java is OO, JSP is really more a tag-based interface into
Java's capabilities and not really meant to be an OO environment.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Michael She [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 9:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox


At 05:39 PM 12/24/00 -0500, Hal Helms you wrote:

>Yes, there's definitely that argument, Dave -- and it's a good one. Someone
>once posted a question on the CFObjects forum, "If you're going to do OO,
>what not just do Java?" I'm still waiting to hear a good answer.
>
>I think CFObjects can be a good bridge for folks moving from CFML to a true
>OO language such as Ruby or Java.


Out of curiousity, is JSP OO?
--
Michael She
I m a g i n e   C o m m u n i c a t i o n s
Company E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personal E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ UIN: #243466
Personal Homepage: http://www.michaelshe.com (Under Construction)
Imagine Communications: http://www.imagineer.net
PGP Fingerprint: 9A24 1DA9 39B8 0A0C C5ED 6E5D 45E9 075A 51CD 66A1
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CFHTTP - URLParam Question

[Hal Helms]

You don't need the question mark.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: sknyppy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 10:31 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFHTTP - URLParam Question


Merry X-mas everyone

When using CFHTTP w/post method to send url variables do you still need to
place the
question mark in the URL string or it placed automatically by CF when
posting  a URL variable?

Example:



REDIRECT="Yes"
RESOLVEURL="yes"
TIMEOUT="200"
USERAGENT="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)">





->
Thanks,

Dave Bosky
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox

[Hal Helms]

You just said the magic word -- combining Fusebox with CFObjects. Ralph and
I are working on that right now. Still, Dave's argument is a very good one:
if you want to use OO as a methodology, why not use a language like Java
that supports it inherently.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 1:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox


aw hell even i can answer that Hal, from what i understand of cfobjects ,
its the only methodology that makes truly modular parts to your
applications.
In fusebox its just written in a modular way, cfobjects contains the whole
thing in its own little world, which to me is what i call real modular
framework, it also makes reusability even easier i think.
i suspect the best would be somewhere in between fusebox and cfobjects

MikeC


> ** Original Subject: RE: Fusebox
> ** Original Sender: "Hal Helms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ** Original Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:35:07 -0500

> ** Original Message follows...

>
> Yes, there's definitely that argument, Dave -- and it's a good one.
Someone
> once posted a question on the CFObjects forum, "If you're going to do OO,
> what not just do Java?" I'm still waiting to hear a good answer.
>
> I think CFObjects can be a good bridge for folks moving from CFML to a
true
> OO language such as Ruby or Java.
>
> Hal Helms
> == See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
> ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==
>
>
> -Original Message-From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:06 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: Fusebox
>
>
> > I agree with Hal. The major problem with CFObjects is that you
> > have to tackle the additiona learning curve of an OO methodology,
> > *and* the documentation/sample-apps leave a lot to be desired for
> > a person new to the methodology. If CFO only had a like Hal hawking
> > it, it'd get a much wider notice :)
>
> I'd argue that the major problem with CFObjects is something completely
> different. I don't think tacking object-orientation onto CF - which is
> pretty much a batch-processing environment - is such a great idea. If you
> want to write OO code, you'd be better served with an OO language.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
>
~ Paid Sponsorship ~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server!  Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free Setup 
from SoloServer  PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support  Visit 
SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Fusebox

[Hal Helms]

Yes, John, that was Shakespeare who said that. It was mistranslated to "the
fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves." I agree: there's nothing
complicated about Fusebox. If anyone wants to see an online course in
Fusebox Basics, go to www.halhelms.com. (It's free.)

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 11:17 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Fusebox



> I think i would p[ersonally tone down the fusebox methodology
> myself, it needs to be alot less complicated to trully be a catch
> all solution.
> When the fuse breaks its maddening, and is just another layer to
> run through to fix stuff.


There are a number of things about Fusebox that can be new ideas to absorb.
However I'm not quite sure I'd call *any* of it complicated. If anything, it
is too loosely simplified

as for the fuse breaking, that is a good use of , which will
catch all undefined fuses. If a known fuse breaks then you should have a
 tag throwing an error that tells you which fuse file it is in
anyway--if anything it is the CODE that is a problem at that point, not how
Fusebox has organized said code's execution. :)

i think someone once said "the fault lies not in the Fuse, but in ourselves"
:)
~ Paid Sponsorship ~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server!  Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free Setup 
from SoloServer  PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support  Visit 
SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Anti-aging formula (was RE: +.htr )

[Hal Helms]

Hmmm...I was using a related product for a while: horses ass formula. My
colleagues told me that I REALLY didn't need it, so I quit...

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 4:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: Anti-aging formula (was RE: +.htr )


> guess what? unless you've got some secret distilled groundup
> monkey butt formula, you soon will be one of those "older" workers.

You know, I've been using this monkey butt formula for a while now, and I'm
very disappointed. It doesn't seem to be working. Should I apply it orally
or topically?

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
~ Paid Sponsorship ~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server!  Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free Setup 
from SoloServer  PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support  Visit 
SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

New online class

[Hal Helms]

I've finished another online class--this time on integrating JavaScript and
ColdFusion. The URL is www.halhelms.com/javascript. The class is free.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==



~ Paid Sponsorship ~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server!  Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free 
Setup from SoloServer  PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support 
 Visit SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Forfields & WDDX

[Hal Helms]

In 4.5, you get a structure called "form" that you can do this with:



Then you can save that string, aWDDXpacket, as a client variable.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com  for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: paul smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 4:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Forfields & WDDX


What's a slick way to put all FormFields (name & value) into WDDX for
placement into a client variable?

best,  paul
~ Paid Sponsorship ~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server!  Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free 
Setup from SoloServer  PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support 
 Visit SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

Animated tutorial on assertions

[Hal Helms]

Happy New Year/New Millennium, everyone!

I've put together an animated tutorial on making assertions in CF.
Assertions help ensure that what we expect is what we get -- or at least we
know if we don't! There's a link at www.halhelms.com as well as a custom tag
for making assertions.

Thanks to Steve Nelson for introducing to me the concept of animated
tutorials. I love 'em.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


~ Paid Sponsorship ~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server!  Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free 
Setup from SoloServer  PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support 
 Visit SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Animated tutorial on assertions

[Hal Helms]

Did I mention that I get 90% of anything you make with that, now? ;=) That
is a great tool. It takes just a little getting used to cursor placement,
but wow!

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Angél Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 11:07 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: FW: Animated tutorial on assertions


Hey! That assert is good stuff.

I must admit though, that I was blown away by that little Viewlet applet :)
I think that's a great tool!

:)
Thanks to you for showing this animated tutorial utility to me heh heh

-Gel


-Original Message-----
From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

I've put together an animated tutorial on making assertions in CF.
Assertions help ensure that what we expect is what we get -- or at least we
know if we don't! There's a link at www.halhelms.com as well as a custom tag
for making assertions.

Thanks to Steve Nelson for introducing to me the concept of animated
tutorials. I love 'em.
~ Paid Sponsorship ~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server!  Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free 
Setup from SoloServer  PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support 
 Visit SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: setting structures into arrays

[Hal Helms]

The problem is that setting the array variable as you have just puts a
pointer to "order". When that changes, so will your reference. Instead, use
"history[1] = Duplicate( order )".

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com  for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Greg Wolfinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: setting structures into arrays


Hey Guys:

I am having problems creating an array of structures and serializing it into
a wddx package for client storage in a db.  My code looks like this:


history=ArrayNew(1);
order=StuctNew();
StructInsert(order, "id", "0001");
StructInsert(order, "date", "01/01/2001");
history[1]=order;
StructClear(order);
StuctInsert(order, "id", "0002");
StrictInsert(order, "date", "01/02/2001");
history[2]=order;


I then serialize and store the data.  However what happends is that the
"history" array has a length of two, but both are set to the second
structures values.  Any ideas??

Thanks in advance,


Greg
~ Paid Sponsorship ~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server!  Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free 
Setup from SoloServer  PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support 
 Visit SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CF-Studio 4.52

[Hal Helms]

I'm using it with Win 2K and find it irritating that it uses an .html
suffix--even when I set it up to use .cfm as a default. Has anyone else seen
this, or is this possibly a Win2K issue?

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF-Studio 4.52


> I believe Allaire took it offline because it caused so many problems.  So
> there really isn't a list of improvements, unless its a vaporware claim.


I've been using it since it's initial release and haven't experienced any
real problems apart from the zero length Help Files.

Ken
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: a cry out for help

[Hal Helms]

I built something like this for a company a couple of years ago. I don't
know how much they're selling it for. You can check it out at www.utais.com.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Nick Call [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:35 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: a cry out for help


Hi:  I have a good one for you.

Upper management has given me 6 hours to come up with (basically) a CF
version of Source Safe.  They want to be able to publish important company
docs, like the strategic business plan for 2001 (in MS Word), and allow
certain members of management to check it out, download it, revise it, and
re-upload it without overwriting old versions.  It has to track revision
dates, author, etc.  And it has to be idiot-proof, becuase they admit that
they are Internet idiots.  Has anyone built this system before in CF?  If
so, how much?

Help.

Nick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: CF-Studio 4.52

[Hal Helms]

I figured it out. When I uncheck "Use standard file dialogs", it works. Oh
well, no big deal.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Ken Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:15 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF-Studio 4.52



FWIF, I'm not seeing that in the final release with installations on Win2K
Pro and Server.

Ken


> I'm using it with Win 2K and find it irritating that it uses an .html
> suffix--even when I set it up to use .cfm as a default. Has
> anyone else seen
> this, or is this possibly a Win2K issue?
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Xml and SQL?

[Hal Helms]

Brett Suwyn from SiteObjects did a writeup in my Occasional Newsletter with
instructions on how to implement XML with SiteObjects. There's a copy online
at www.halhelms.com.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Paul Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:06 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Xml and SQL?


It has to be said, that if you want to get into XML, go and have a look at
the Siteobjects tags

http://www.siteobjects.com

It's an excellent starting point.

Paul

-Original Message-
From: Gilles Ratté [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 3:54 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Xml and SQL?


I would be very interested the see some cold fusion code samples.

Thanks

- Original Message -
From: "Neil Giarratana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 8:10 AM
Subject: RE: Xml and SQL?


> Not sure where (if anywhere) you are with the process.  My first
suggestion
> would be to take a look at the xmldom COM object from Microsoft.  It will
> allow you to walk the XML document and/or search out and loop through
> desired nodes.  The good news is that any machine installed with IE5
already
> has the XMLDOM installed so it's fairly easy to find and use.  I can send
> you some code snippets of using the XMLDOM with Cold Fusion if you need.
>
> Regards,
> Neil
>
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Easy CFLOOP Question

[Hal Helms]

Yes, use currentRow.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 8:45 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Easy CFLOOP Question


is there a way to find out what row i am on in a cfloop?

Like inside my loop, call a condition like this



   
 We are on row 1
   
 We are not on row 1
   



Is there a way to do this?  Some variable i am overlooking?

Thanks

Kevin
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Session End

[Hal Helms]

Peter, there's a tutorial on this at www.halhelms.com that explains how to
make the session expire when the browser is closed.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com <http://www.ColdFusionTraining.com>  for
info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Peter Benoit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 9:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Session End


Why don't my Sessions automatically time out when the browser closes?

I set session vars when someone logs into my site, and if they close the
browser window then open it back up and revisit the site, the vars are still
active.  Why is this and what can I do to change it?  I use the sessions to
verify login.

-Pete
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: OT: Learning Javascript Books,

[Hal Helms]

I think Danny Goodman's JavaScript Bible is also fantastic. The thing I
appreciate most is the painstaking research he did on what differences there
are among browsers and versions.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Billy Cravens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 11:17 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT: Learning Javascript Books,


O'Reilly's JavaScript: The Definitive Guide

It's not a fun or easy read like For Dummies, etc books, but it teaches
you the language from the grounds up, as opposed to the typical approach
of only covering basic form validation and DHTML.  Plus the reference
section is excellent.

--
Billy

Michael wrote:
>
> Any recommendations, Please
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael
>
>
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: And the award goes to ......

[Hal Helms]

Snow?

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: And the award goes to ..


And in Canada it takes only 4 hours to count 15 million votes. So what
do they have that Florida doesn't.

regards,
larry

--
Larry C. Lyons
ColdFusion/Web Developer
EBStor.com
8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 201
Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795
tel: (703) 393-7930 x253
fax: (703) 393-2659
http://www.ebstor.com
http://www.pacel.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.
--

"Stephen R. Cassady" wrote:
>
> >Handcount the votes ??? only in florida ??
>
> And in Canada. All votes are hand counted. And we mark them with these
itsy
> bitsy pencils.
>
> :)
>
> Stephen Cassady
> http://www.tallylist.com < FOR ADVANCED LIST ARCHIVING
>
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
> Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: query to struct?

[Hal Helms]

Are you just getting a single row back and you want to convert that into a
structure?

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Mak Wing Lok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: query to struct?


does anyone knows how to convert a query result set to a structure?
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

OT: list problems

[Hal Helms]

Excuse me, folks, but has anyone else had trouble getting messages from the
list? I didn't receive anything for several hours and now am getting
messages, but no backlog. Is it the list or my system?

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Mak Wing Lok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: query to struct?


does anyone knows how to convert a query result set to a structure?
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Macromedia and Allaire to Merge -- A couple examples of mixin g technologies

[Hal Helms]

People who want to see a killer demo of integrating CF and Flash should look
at FigLeaf's org chart demo that Steve mentions. Imagine having the ability
to do this kind of interface easily--that would be a bee-yoo-tiful thing.

Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com  for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==


-Original Message-
From: Steve Drucker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 9:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Macromedia and Allaire to Merge -- A couple examples of
mixin g technologies



I'm afraid that Dave gave out the url of a very early prototype that we
created over a year ago using Flash 4 and CF...the demo (with code ripped
from the production app) is actually located here...


http://www.figleaf.com/development/flash4/orgchart/orgchart.cfm


This demonstrates the use of Flash and CF to create an org-chart interface.
You can lookup users by name (passing information to a CF page for data
retrieval) and then drag names into the appropriate locations on the chart.
Clicking the Save button passes the information back to CF for DB
processing.  A couple additional benefits are that the org chart dynamically
resizes based on browser resizing and the EXACT SAME CODEBASE works on
Netscape 4.x and Internet Explorer...

Other data-driven demos are available at
http://www.figleaf.com/figleafhome/flash/ and the Harpoon project is all
about creating data-driven Flash business objects from CF.  At the ACFUG and
ChiFug this month, I will be demonstrating using CF, Flash, Spectra, and
Generator for content management purposes.  This compelling mix of
technologies is what we feel will drive the web in the future.  Is it a
panacea?  No...but it does deliver many compelling advantages.

Regards,
Steve Drucker
CEO
Fig Leaf Software

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:55 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Macromedia and Allaire to Merge


NOW, it does.  It didn't last night.  I guess it wasn't quite ready for
prime time then.

Thanks.

best,  paul

PS> I get the 404 on OK, too  (They probably don't want the changes to be
permanent.)

At 09:18 AM 1/18/01 +, you wrote:
>Click Search & you get a list of names which you can
>drag & drop into the various boxes.
>
>When I hit OK I get a 404 though :-(
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 5:58 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: Macromedia and Allaire to Merge
>
>
>What's it supposed to do?  It just sits there for me.
>
>best,  paul
>
>At 06:18 PM 1/17/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >Take a look at this, and tell me Flash has no place in business apps:
> >
> >http://www.figleaf.com/development/flash4/orgchart.swf
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: hal's wireframe

[Hal Helms]

That's right. The wireframe's purpose is just to get us to the point where
we can do a prototype. Once we're into the prototype phase, the wireframe
isn't used anymore. BTW, if anyone wants the wireframe code, you can get it
at www.halhelms.com.

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Jason Egan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: hal's wireframe


I've just been looking at Hal's wireframe - this is for development correct?
This isn't intended for use in the actual application right?

je
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: UML information recommendations?

[Hal Helms]

UML really isn't a methodology; it's a way of describing information about
the application. Fusebox is a methodology that gives guidance on
architecture of code structure.

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: David Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 5:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: UML information recommendations?


Apparently the Oreilly book is very good as well.

This makes me wonder.  Does FuseBox methodology and UML compliment each
other or compete?

Dave Adams
CFUG Ottawa
- Original Message -
From: Simon Horwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 3:15 PM
Subject: RE: UML information recommendations?


> I think the WROX Press UML Book is excellent.
>
> ~Simon
>
> > Simon Horwith
> > Allaire Certified ColdFusion Instructor
> > Certified ColdFusion Developer
> > Fig Leaf Software
> > 1400 16th St NW, # 220
> > Washington DC 20036
> > 202.797.6570 (direct line)
> > www.figleaf.com
> >
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Theobald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 2:35 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: UML information recommendations?
>
>
> Can anyone recommend a good source of information for advanced programmers
> who are new to UML?
> Especially if it relates to web development.
>
> --
-
> Peter Theobald, Chief Technology Officer
> LiquidStreaming http://www.liquidstreaming.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone 1.212.545.1232 x204 Fax 1.212.545.0938
>
> To put this contact information into your Palm device, click here:
> http://www.coola.com/cgi-bin/addinfo.cgi?pid=15803&rid=972879910&type=A
>
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: hal's wireframe

[Hal Helms]

You've got it exactly right, Troy. One of the nice things about the
prototype EXACTLY matching the finished app is that the prototype forms the
basis for acceptance testing. We KNOW we're done when the prototype runs.
(There are obviously some things, like integration with backend systems,
that can't be prototyped, but these can be specified and separate acceptance
tests created.)

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Troy Sorzano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 6:26 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: hal's wireframe


I saw Hal's presentation at CF_South this weekend.  From my understanding
the wireframes is used to create a
"wireframe" of the website/application you are creating from the notes you
take during the client meetings.  Then
once you have the "wireframe" done and the client understands the flow of
the site/app you can begin proto typing
the app in HTML with all the controls.  Then using his DevNotes stuff have
the user give feedback on the
prototype.  Once the client is sick of looking at the prototype you can
freeze it and being coding CF.  Then
deliver the CF app.  It should match the prototype exactly but now it will
have full functionality.  And the
client knew all a long what they were getting.  So they cant bitch they
don't like it or want changes without
paying for them.

Later,

Troy Sorzano


In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Egan
wrote:
> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 13:59:42 -0700
> From: "Jason Egan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: hal's wireframe
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I've just been looking at Hal's wireframe - this is for development
correct?
> This isn't intended for use in the actual application right?
>
> je
>
>
>
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: hal's wireframe

[Hal Helms]

Neither the wireframe nor the prototype have XFAs or fuseactions, etc.
Consider that at this point of the project, no architectural decisions (I'm
speaking of coding architecture) have been (nor should be) made. The
wireframe app I wrote lets you create a text file in a Windows .ini format
and it reads that file and creates a clickable "app". That certainly is CF
code, but the person creating it doesn't need to know anything about
programming.

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Jason Egan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: hal's wireframe


ok, so then - not wanting to do any 'coding' because you're using html
programmers, not cf programmers, don't you need some amount of cf to
navigate thought the application with fuseactions, xfa's etc?  so it is a
'wire frame' in cfm, not htm - with graphics, functionality (simulated),
navigation... and devnotes for the customers input.

je

-Original Message-
From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 5:44 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: hal's wireframe


That's right. The wireframe's purpose is just to get us to the point where
we can do a prototype. Once we're into the prototype phase, the wireframe
isn't used anymore. BTW, if anyone wants the wireframe code, you can get it
at www.halhelms.com.

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Jason Egan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: hal's wireframe


I've just been looking at Hal's wireframe - this is for development correct?
This isn't intended for use in the actual application right?

je
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Wanted: Sr. Developer

[Hal Helms]

Does that mean we need another list for TALKing about JOBS?

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Philip Arnold - ASP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 3:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Wanted: Sr. Developer


> > Isn't this what the CF-Jobs list is for?
>
> CF-ThereAreTooManyLists

Maybe, but CF-Talk is for TALKing about CF, while CF-Jobs is for JOBS using
CF...

Philip Arnold
Director
Certified ColdFusion Developer
ASP Multimedia Limited
T: +44 (0)20 8680 1133

"Websites for the real world"

**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
**
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Dave's Burning Rant, Part Deux

[Hal Helms]

It was admittedly off-topic but very well written. Bravo.

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: Dave's Burning Rant, Part Deux


I apologize in advance for continuing this off-topic thread.

> > Admittedly, the openness and interrelatedness of Microsoft
> > Office, Outlook, IE, and WSH make it easy to write relatively
> > powerful viruses, the ultimate responsibility for safe computer
> > use, like safe driving and safe sex, lies with the one behind
> > the wheel.
>
> This would be a valid comment if most people were aware of
> the problems that exist hidden in their email client.
>
> They aren't.
>
> How many people do you know who are aware of the WSH, what it
> can do and how to disable it if they want to?
>
> MS knows these features are insecure and they continue to
> ship Outlook with them enabled by default.
>
> How is it then the end users fault when the software does
> something untoward that they are not aware it can do?

I don't expect every end user to understand WSH, or to know what it is.

However, my guess is that nearly every computer user in an office with a
network (and thus, a sysadmin) has heard this before:

"If you get something in your email, and you don't know what it is, DON'T
DOUBLE-CLICK ON IT!"

This doesn't have anything to do with WSH, or Outlook, or Microsoft for that
matter. Malicious executable code may take many forms. A couple of years
ago, virus writers did their work in assembler, because they didn't have
WSH, and you had the same problems with email attachments - you couldn't
double-click them!

I think that, by this time, if you don't know that you can get viruses by
double-clicking on an email attachment, the computer in your cave probably
doesn't have a network connection anyway.

> > How many people have received legitimate messages from
> > someone they know (but aren't already in a relationship
> > with) saying "I love you"? Are we all that desperate for
> > love, that we'll just double-click blindly for it? How
> > many people regularly receive salacious pictures of female
> > tennis stars from their coworkers?
>
> This isn't really the point though. The fact remains that
> some virus writer could put anything in the subject line. The
> choice of subjects and attachment material reflects more on the
> writer of the virus than anything else.
>
> Besides, wasn't there one virus that had a subject line
> similar to "Here is that information you requested"? Hardly
> anything lascivious there.

To answer this, I'll use our office manager as an example. Quinn, I hope you
don't mind. She's not a programmer. She doesn't know how to install much
software, or write web applications. She uses her computer for email,
browsing the web, and using MS Office. Yet, she knows better than to
double-click on attachments that she didn't ask for. Her machine doesn't
even have antivirus software installed right now, but I'm not worried about
her. Why? She has enough common sense to avoid these sorts of problems.

As for what virus writers "could" put in the subject line, the amount of
"social engineering" with most of the latest WSH viruses is laughable. When
I saw the first virus message on the list today, even though the attachment
wasn't there (thanks to Mike D), I knew it was a virus. This isn't rocket
science. You might have a point, if there actually were WSH viruses going
around that looked at all like legitimate mail, but they don't. The quality
of social engineering with WSH viruses is much lower than with assembler
viruses, which were often hidden in a tempting executable or screen-saver.

Finally - and this is all I've got to say - this kind of attitude, in which
you expect the end user to be irresponsible and, frankly, stupid, is the
kind of paternalistic Politburo outlook of people who think that the masses
must be protected from themselves. Being an adult means knowing what happens
- and being responsible for it - when you push the button, or pull the
trigger, or push the accelerator.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Wanted CF Web app development methodology

[Hal Helms]

Eric, for one take on this, you might want to look at my January Occasional
Newsletter. I outline the steps I take in the development of an application.

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Eric V. Hodge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 10:47 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Wanted CF Web app development methodology


something at a higher level than an application framework.  Something at the
project managment level which outlines;  the phases of the development life
cycle, roles and responsibilities, hardware & software requirements, etc.

thanks,
eric
- Original Message -
From: "Cameron Childress" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: Wanted CF Web app development methodology


> > Does anyone know where I could find or be willing to share with
> > me a web development methodology which highlights the use of cold
> > fusion app development?
>
> You didn't  yes, yes you did...
>
> I predict 15+ replies to this question.  allow me to be the first (maybe)
>
> Fusebox.org
>
> -Cameron
>
> 
> Cameron Childress
> elliptIQ Inc.
> p.770.460.7277.232
> f.770.460.0963
>
>
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: can anyone help?

[Hal Helms]

You need to add in the variable name:



Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Jay Patton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 12:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: can anyone help?


Hello all,

Im getting an error that i cant figure out here... everything looks fine to
me but maybe someone else can see something. here is the error..

Error Diagnostic Information
Just in time compilation error

Invalid parser construct found on line 98 at position 30. ColdFusion was
looking at the following text:

GTE
Invalid expression format. The usual cause is an error in the expression
structure.
The last successfully parsed CFML construct was a CFIF tag occupying
document position (98:2) to (98:6).

AND HERE IS MY CODE:


  SELECT * FROM SubCats
  WHERE TopCatID = #URL.CategoryID#
  ORDER BY SubCat
  


  #prodpage.Category#



  


  
  
  

!! this is line 98!! 

  
  
  

  
  
  #ItemN
ame#

  
  
  

 

 

  
  
  

  
  
  #ItemN
ame#

  
  
  

 

  

  

  
  
  

Any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks,

Jay Patton
Web Design / Application Design
Web Pro USA
406.549.3337 ext. 203
1.888.5WEBPRO
www.webpro-usa.com
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Delimiters...

[Hal Helms]

Probably the closest would be GetToken().

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Ethan Rosch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 4:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Delimiters...


Hi all

Is there a command similar to Left(string, count) that is

DelemiterLeft(String,Delimeter)
DelemiterRight(String, Delimeter)

such that if I was to get a variable like

Name = Toohey,Elton

I could do

#LastName

would give me

Toohey

?

thanks...

ethan



- Original Message -
From: "Ethan Rosch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: modules, loops, and fun!


> Hi Douglas...thanks for the tip...
>
> I still think I need to pass my fields as I will be uploading/deleting
files
> and don't want to be running my actions on every field.  Perhaps I could
> just do a test for "://".
>
> the evaluate() was what I was looking for.
>
> e
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Douglas Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:55 AM
> Subject: Re: modules, loops, and fun!
>
>
> > By the way, you don't need to pass in your list of form fields, since
they
> > are globally available to the CFMODULE you are running.
> >
> > I think you want to use the EVALUATE function like so:
> >
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >
> > However, if you do a list loop (which is slightly slower), then do this:
> >
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >
> >
> > At 10:22 AM 2/16/01, Ethan Rosch wrote:
> > >hi all...
> > >
> > >quick question as I delve into the world of modules and loops...
> > >
> > >
> > >I am trying to build a module that will in turn loop over the
attributes
> > >sent to it, which are form fields..this module will take whatever
> form
> > >fields are sent to it and then get there values and act via a loop.
> > >
> > >my problem is how to get the formfelds to parse to their values in the
> > >module loop and not their names.
> > >
> > >here's a sample code of the idea:
> > >
> > > > > mylist="firstformfieldname,secondformfieldname,">
> > >
> > >---
> > >
> > >for this example let's say that
> > >
> > >firstformfield's user inputed value = Red
> > >secondformfield's user inputed value = blue
> > >
> > >now the module
> > >
> > >---
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #Fieldname#
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >what I want is :
> > >
> > >Red
> > >Blue
> > >
> > >what I get is:
> > >
> > >FirstFormField
> > >SecondFormField
> > >
> > >any idea's would be greatly appreciated...I'm beating myself up and now
I
> > >come to you.
> > >
> > >thanks,
> > >
> > >ethan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: advanced list

[Hal Helms]

The Fusebox list is more specific and you might want to try that out, as
well as CF-Talk. I don't think there are any advanced lists, per se.

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 4:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: advanced list




Can someone suggest another ColdFusion list-serv with more advanced topics
and
where the bulk of the members actually discuss ColdFusion topics, not jobs,
or
how to build simple JavaScript stuff?



Cheers!
--
Douglas Knudsen
LTT, that's Leveraged Technologies Team
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Got Linux?  http://linuxmall.com
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: advanced list

[Hal Helms]

I don't know if the will work out or not, but kudos for trying something
new. I'm sure it was a huge amount of work, too.

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 12:55 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: advanced list


> I have to agree.  I like the list the way it is.
>
> We all have delete keys.  Let the list live as is.
The lists are staying as is, I was talking about a new experimental list.
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

RE: Changing form names

[Hal Helms]

You could change it with JavaScript prior to submission, but this might be a
great time to swear off using cfupdate and go with a full SQL query.

Hal Helms
== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
Fusebox" training ==


-Original Message-
From: Les Irvin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 8:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Changing form names


In my application, users are updating a database via a form. Is it possible
to dynamically change a form field name - say from "order1" to "order" -
after the form is submitted but before the  tag is processed?  If
so, how could it be done?
Thanks in advance,
Les
~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at 
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists