RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
Poor design. There will be some coldFusion file requests that don't need that include. No matter how much you say never, it's bound to happen. If it's a small site, then we're talking about ten cfincludes. If it's a large site, then it's very likely that you either already have coldFusion requests that don't require those includes, or you will at one point encounter that. No, there is nothing wrong with it, it's just poor design. Really, how long does it take to type: cfinclude template=header.inc. Pretty easy to copy and paste it too... I actually take it one step further and use them as custom tags instead. Not really necessary, but I like typing cf_header instead. -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:51 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude There is nothing wrong with including files in Application.cfm. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901 -Original Message- From: Kevin Bridges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:43 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I can' recall the exact reason either but I have heard also that it is extrememly bad form to use Application.cfm and OnRequestEnd.cfm to do any type of cfincludes ... I got reprimanded in an article I wrote for including header and footer files that way. -Original Message- From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:23 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: application.cfm vs. cfinclude But if he is already including it at the top of each page, and this is going to continue to be the case, then I do not see any reason why you could not do this. - Original Message - From: Costas Piliotis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:19 PM Subject: RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I remember forta strongly advising against it. Don't remember why, but he suggested that all you have in it is the cfapplication tag. With includes, you have full control over when they are included or not. -Original Message- From: Austin Govella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:10 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I use includes for the DTD at the top of every page. I was planning on using cfinclude to add the DTDs, but if the application. cfm is automatically stuck at the top of every page, is there a reason why it'd be bad to ask the it to add the DTD? I was thinking I'd save myself some small bit of server load if it only processed te application.cfm, as opposed to processing application.cfm AND a cfinclude. And then there's the footer and the onrequestend.cfm file... -- Austin Govella Grafofini ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
There is of course FuseBox. All the convenience of including headers in the Application.cfm file with a specific method of NOT including headers in pages that don't need them. Try FuseBox.org or HalHelms.com for more on that. Poor design. There will be some ColdFusion file requests that don't need that include. No matter how much you say never, it's bound to happen. ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 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: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
I remember forta strongly advising against it. Don't remember why, but he suggested that all you have in it is the cfapplication tag. With includes, you have full control over when they are included or not. -Original Message- From: Austin Govella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:10 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I use includes for the DTD at the top of every page. I was planning on using cfinclude to add the DTDs, but if the application. cfm is automatically stuck at the top of every page, is there a reason why it'd be bad to ask the it to add the DTD? I was thinking I'd save myself some small bit of server load if it only processed te application.cfm, as opposed to processing application.cfm AND a cfinclude. And then there's the footer and the onrequestend.cfm file... -- Austin Govella Grafofini ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=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.
Re: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
But if he is already including it at the top of each page, and this is going to continue to be the case, then I do not see any reason why you could not do this. - Original Message - From: Costas Piliotis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:19 PM Subject: RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I remember forta strongly advising against it. Don't remember why, but he suggested that all you have in it is the cfapplication tag. With includes, you have full control over when they are included or not. -Original Message- From: Austin Govella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:10 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I use includes for the DTD at the top of every page. I was planning on using cfinclude to add the DTDs, but if the application. cfm is automatically stuck at the top of every page, is there a reason why it'd be bad to ask the it to add the DTD? I was thinking I'd save myself some small bit of server load if it only processed te application.cfm, as opposed to processing application.cfm AND a cfinclude. And then there's the footer and the onrequestend.cfm file... -- Austin Govella Grafofini ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq 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
RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
I can' recall the exact reason either but I have heard also that it is extrememly bad form to use Application.cfm and OnRequestEnd.cfm to do any type of cfincludes ... I got reprimanded in an article I wrote for including header and footer files that way. -Original Message- From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:23 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: application.cfm vs. cfinclude But if he is already including it at the top of each page, and this is going to continue to be the case, then I do not see any reason why you could not do this. - Original Message - From: Costas Piliotis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:19 PM Subject: RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I remember forta strongly advising against it. Don't remember why, but he suggested that all you have in it is the cfapplication tag. With includes, you have full control over when they are included or not. -Original Message- From: Austin Govella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:10 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I use includes for the DTD at the top of every page. I was planning on using cfinclude to add the DTDs, but if the application. cfm is automatically stuck at the top of every page, is there a reason why it'd be bad to ask the it to add the DTD? I was thinking I'd save myself some small bit of server load if it only processed te application.cfm, as opposed to processing application.cfm AND a cfinclude. And then there's the footer and the onrequestend.cfm file... -- Austin Govella Grafofini ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=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.
RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
I use includes for the DTD at the top of every page. I was planning on using cfinclude to add the DTDs, but if the application.cfm is automatically stuck at the top of every page, is there a reason why it'd be bad to ask the it to add the DTD? I was thinking I'd save myself some small bit of server load if it only processed te application.cfm, as opposed to processing application.cfm AND a cfinclude. And then there's the footer and the onrequestend.cfm file... The reason you might want to avoid doing this is simply that, by putting these things in Application.cfm and OnRequestEnd.cfm, they'd be output in every page whether you want them or not. For example, if you want to use CFCONTENT to push a non-HTML file or generated non-HTML text to the browser, you wouldn't want your DTDs and footers in there. In general, it's usually a good idea to only place server-side code in these files for this reason. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 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: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
But if he is already including it at the top of each page, and this is going to continue to be the case, then I do not see any reason why you could not do this. -- I do... inevitably, you'll come to some point in your site where you'll want to output only x number of characters or you just want to show an image.. something that's an exception to the normal rule.. your application.cfm will then be spitting out DTD's for an image, which will break this exception page.. Those examples might seem far off, but let the application.cfm just do application logic... use a cfinclude tag for ANY formatting. I can't see any reason why you would want to include formatting in application.cfm. AJ -- Aaron Johnson http://cephas.net/blog/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
Completely agree.. We've had that issue come up many times. Application.cfm isn't the place to do formatting. | -Original Message- | From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:09 PM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: application.cfm vs. cfinclude | | | But if he is already including it at the top of each page, | and this is | going to continue to be the case, then I do not see any | reason why you | could not do this. | -- I do... inevitably, you'll come to some point in your | site where you'll want to output only x number of | characters or you just want to show an image.. something | that's an exception to the normal rule.. your application.cfm | will then be spitting out DTD's for an image, which will | break this exception page.. | | Those examples might seem far off, but let the | application.cfm just do application logic... use a cfinclude | tag for ANY formatting. I can't see any reason why you would | want to include formatting in application.cfm. | | AJ | | | -- | Aaron Johnson | http://cephas.net/blog/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I use application.cfm myself, but only for setting global variables. If I need to have a header with formatting, then I'll do a cfinclude for that. At 03:07 PM 12/11/02 -0800, you wrote: Completely agree.. We've had that issue come up many times. Application.cfm isn't the place to do formatting. | -Original Message- | From: Aaron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:09 PM | To: CF-Talk | Subject: Re: application.cfm vs. cfinclude | | | But if he is already including it at the top of each page, | and this is | going to continue to be the case, then I do not see any | reason why you | could not do this. | -- I do... inevitably, you'll come to some point in your | site where you'll want to output only x number of | characters or you just want to show an image.. something | that's an exception to the normal rule.. your application.cfm | will then be spitting out DTD's for an image, which will | break this exception page.. | | Those examples might seem far off, but let the | application.cfm just do application logic... use a cfinclude | tag for ANY formatting. I can't see any reason why you would | want to include formatting in application.cfm. | | AJ | | | -- | Aaron Johnson | http://cephas.net/blog/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
There is nothing wrong with including files in Application.cfm. Matt Liotta President CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901 -Original Message- From: Kevin Bridges [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:43 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I can' recall the exact reason either but I have heard also that it is extrememly bad form to use Application.cfm and OnRequestEnd.cfm to do any type of cfincludes ... I got reprimanded in an article I wrote for including header and footer files that way. -Original Message- From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:23 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: application.cfm vs. cfinclude But if he is already including it at the top of each page, and this is going to continue to be the case, then I do not see any reason why you could not do this. - Original Message - From: Costas Piliotis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:19 PM Subject: RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I remember forta strongly advising against it. Don't remember why, but he suggested that all you have in it is the cfapplication tag. With includes, you have full control over when they are included or not. -Original Message- From: Austin Govella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:10 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I use includes for the DTD at the top of every page. I was planning on using cfinclude to add the DTDs, but if the application. cfm is automatically stuck at the top of every page, is there a reason why it'd be bad to ask the it to add the DTD? I was thinking I'd save myself some small bit of server load if it only processed te application.cfm, as opposed to processing application.cfm AND a cfinclude. And then there's the footer and the onrequestend.cfm file... -- Austin Govella Grafofini ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=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.
RE: application.cfm vs. cfinclude
-Original Message- From: Austin Govella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:10 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: application.cfm vs. cfinclude I use includes for the DTD at the top of every page. I was planning on using cfinclude to add the DTDs, but if the application. cfm is automatically stuck at the top of every page, is there a reason why it'd be bad to ask the it to add the DTD? It depends. Application.cfm is going to run at the top of every page - regardless of whether it's a display page or not. So you can do it, but I would guess you'd run into a case sooner or later when you don't want that DTD up there. I was thinking I'd save myself some small bit of server load if it only processed te application.cfm, as opposed to processing application.cfm AND a cfinclude. Well - it's still doing both (whether the file is included in the application.cfm or not, it's still cfincluded) but the total hit should be negligable in both cases. And then there's the footer and the onrequestend.cfm file... Same thing - the file is run all the time regardless - and sooner or later you'll not want that stuff in the page and have to work around it. That's not to say it can't be worked around... Personally I just prefer to keep my Application.cfm/OnRequest.cfm as clean as possible. That's just personal preference however. Jim Davis ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq 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
