I do not and never have. Not against it, but just never saw the need.
From: "Dain Anderson"
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:27 AM
To: "cf-talk"
Subject: Do people still name their UPDATE, INSERT & DELETE queries?
I may hav
> I may have missed conversation of this over the years, so I figured I would
> ask.
>
> What's the current "take" on this (old?) practice? If I have a CFC function
> that deletes a record, and that CFC contains a single query, do you find it
> necessary to scope that query with a name?
It's neit
> I would even go so far as to recommend you delete it. Less code means less
> bugs.
The converse of this is, fewer changes to existing code means fewer
bugs. There's no reason to waste time making trivial changes to
existing code.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http
On 3/15/2011 9:34 PM, Raymond Camden wrote:
> I don't bother. Is it worthwhile to go through code and change it -
> not imho. (Unless of course you forgot to varscope it.)
but builder complains though. and we must do what builder says, right ;-)
~~
Agreed, we do this as well. I'm more or less concerned with a more "in
general," as a concept.
It sounds like it's unnecessary and safe to remove. Thanks for everyone's
help.
-Dain
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Phillip Duba wrote:
>
> I do purely for debugging purposes. This way I can du
I do purely for debugging purposes. This way I can dump the resultset, with
the new features in 8 and 9, and see exactly what is going on with the query
in the form of parameters, generated SQL, etc.,
Phil
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Dain Anderson wrote:
>
> I may have missed conversation
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Dain Anderson wrote:
>
> I may have missed conversation of this over the years, so I figured I would
> ask.
>
> What's the current "take" on this (old?) practice? If I have a CFC function
> that deletes a record, and that CFC contains a single query, do you find
If you aren't using any kind of returned data from a query, don't worry
about giving the cfquery tag a name attribute. It's a few extra bytes you
can save on your fingers. I would even go so far as to recommend you delete
it. Less code means less bugs.
nathan strutz
[http://www.dopefly.com/] [htt
I don't bother. Is it worthwhile to go through code and change it -
not imho. (Unless of course you forgot to varscope it.)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Dain Anderson wrote:
>
> I may have missed conversation of this over the years, so I figured I would
> ask.
>
> What's the current "take"
I may have missed conversation of this over the years, so I figured I would
ask.
What's the current "take" on this (old?) practice? If I have a CFC function
that deletes a record, and that CFC contains a single query, do you find it
necessary to scope that query with a name?
d
10 matches
Mail list logo
