Dan,
Sounds like it would benefit more developers if MM buys this extension from you and
incorporate it into CFMX for I believe form input and process is a critical data
process in a lot of applications.
Thanks.
Don
Don,
The problem, specifically, there are two types of validations:
1)
Don,
Nice!
Would it solve js problems I described in the following thread?
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=messagesthreadid=2
5711forumid=4
I'm not 100% sure I understand what your asking in that e-mail, but:
1) You can define custom/unique error messages for each
Can you defined Multi-Lingual error messages?
-Original Message-
From: Dan G. Switzer, II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 July 2003 13:48
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: qForms (was Re: CFForm madness. 0_0)
Don,
Nice!
Would it solve js problems I described in the following thread
Neil,
Can you defined Multi-Lingual error messages?
Version 2.0 will include support for localization. You'll be able to set a
variable to determine what language the error messages are displayed in.
As it is right now, you can supply custom error messages for all the
validation methods, so
Dan,
The problem, specifically, there are two types of validations:
1) field required or not, msg responds to that;
2) field data_type, msg responds to that.
But there's only one Message attribute.
Also, in my utility/application, all db related metadata and data are dynamically
determined,
Don,
The problem, specifically, there are two types of validations:
1) field required or not, msg responds to that;
2) field data_type, msg responds to that.
But there's only one Message attribute.
qForms is a completely different beast than CFFORM. You can attach unlimited
validation rules
wish qforms was built into dwmx.. cough cough...
seems like a standard way of validating for over 3 years now...
-paul
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
: CFForm madness. 0_0
wish qforms was built into dwmx.. cough cough...
seems like a standard way of validating for over 3 years now...
-paul
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription
Ok!
I implemented Q Forms...and I really think its GREAT!
It isn't hard to use AT All, the only thign that tripped me up was case
sensitivity for field names.
But other than that..I mean the thing rocks!
Email validation, Zip code validation...telephone number
validation..it's all here!
I
It's like taking the red pill, isn't it? :)
- Original Message -
From: Angel Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:12 pm
Subject: RE: qForms (was Re: CFForm madness. 0_0)
Ok!
I implemented Q Forms...and I really think its GREAT!
It isn't hard to use AT All
Please see my comments below.
Jon,
One guy hacking it, is probably going to be more efficient
with his own stuff.
I immensely disagree with this statement (of course, I wrote the API. g) I
think even individuals greatly benefit from qForms. I don't really equate
Fusebox and qForms, because
the fact you are using cfform is sheer madness!
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 July 2003 18:19
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFForm madness. 0_0
Okies..
I am totally stumped by this.
This is my code:
cfform ACTION=testval.cfm METHOD=post
What's so horrible about using CFFORM for simple validation for a field
that's either required/not required??
Isn't that why it is included in CFMX?
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the fact you are using cfform is sheer madness!
PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
What's so horrible about using CFFORM for simple validation for a field
that's either required/not required??
Isn't that why it is included in CFMX?
-Gel
-Original Message-
From
What's so horrible about using CFFORM for simple validation
for a field that's either required/not required??
There's nothing wrong with using it, although it does have its limitations.
Isn't that why it is included in CFMX?
Yes, I imagine so.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
it saves on
development time.
Mike I'd suggest another look, they may be more useful( or useless ;-) )
than you think.
Kola
-Original Message-
From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 14:53
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
Thats a good
like to save time!
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 14:49
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
What's so horrible about using CFFORM for simple validation for a field
that's either required/not required??
Isn't that why
tags to CFMX from scratch they'd provide something more
sophisticated.
Matthew Walker
Electric Sheep Web
http://www.electricsheep.co.nz/
- Original Message -
From: Angel Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:49 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm
with that.
Nothing against really, I just often need more than what it offers.
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Kola Oyedeji [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:03 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Interesting I used to be of the same mind set
*takes a look at Qforms*
*grumbles*
Yes. This looks a lot cooler.
But its so much stuff to learn.
*sigh*
But it is a lot cooler.
*mutter*
I guess I've been fighting using this too long.
*settles down to try using the API*
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Michael T. Tangorre
yep.QForms is nice...very nice
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 15:09
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
*takes a look at Qforms*
*grumbles*
Yes. This looks a lot cooler.
But its so much stuff to learn.
*sigh
: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
I suppose so. I have used it in the past quite a bit, but found it fell
short in some areas or I had to combine it with additional JS. It just made
more sense to me to use one or the other, and since the qForms API or even
custom written stuff was more flexible I have just
).
As far as Qforms...I've not used it myself, but I have yet to hear anything
but rave reviews from people who have.
charlie
- Original Message -
From: Angel Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Yes well, from someone that isn't too in-depth with Javascript it is a
bit
Strange.
I am ..worried over the reports I'm reading here that using CFFORM
increases page rendering time by so much though. It means that it
certainly won't be an option on a large site with multiple
field-multiple
2003 15:08
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
I suppose so. I have used it in the past quite a bit, but found it
fell
short in some areas or I had to combine it with additional JS. It
just
made
more sense to me to use one or the other, and since the qForms API or
even
custom
So..umm..who has a neat tutorial for using Qforms API ^_^
-Gel
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribeforumid=4
.
-Original Message-
From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 15:33
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Well if the extra time used to generate the javascript used in cfform is
huge performance hit then that would be a good reason not to use it. Of
course we all
Just to be clear, this may have been fixed, or about to be fixed.(r3dsci)
Also I haven't tested this myself, just read Matts post (but I trust Matt..)
WG
I am ..worried over the reports I'm reading here that using CFFORM
increases page rendering time by so much though. It means that it
Personally the #1 reason I hate CFFORM is the one error at a time
functionality..10 fieldsall required..none filled inform
submittedtells user about field 1user submits...tells user about
field 2submits form...tells user about field 3.and so on.If I
were that user
here here..this is also one of the reasons we moved away (apart from
performance)
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 15:47
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
Personally the #1 reason I hate CFFORM is the one error at a time
dont think it has
NDA, NDA... ;-)
-Original Message-
From: webguy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 15:46
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Just to be clear, this may have been fixed, or about to be fixed.(r3dsci)
Also I haven't tested this myself, just
I think someone on the qforms list built tags that use qforms without need
to do js
Email dan and find out !
WG
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 15:34
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
So..umm..who has a neat tutorial
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:33 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Well if the extra time used to generate the javascript used in cfform is
huge performance hit then that would be a good reason not to use it. Of
course we all realize we need server side validation but what's often
-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
What kind if validation would you do on the server side for a form? I
think
(probably quite reckless) that most people will have JS enabled
Check out the examples at pengoworks:
http://www.pengoworks.com/qforms/docs/examples/
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Angel Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
So..umm..who has a neat
Tags??
CF Tags??
Really??
!_!
Who's Dan?
Do you have them?
Who's Dan?
How come they aren't on the Macromedia Exchange!
Who's Dan?
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: webguy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think someone on the qforms list built tags that use qforms without
need to do js
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) [mailto:Neil.Robertson-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 15:38
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
What kind if validation would you do on the server side for a form?
I
think
(probably quite reckless
Take a few minutes and read up on qForms at the links I provided you.
Dan is on this list form time to time.
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Angel Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Tags
- Original Message -
From: Bryan Stevenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
Personally the #1 reason I hate CFFORM is the one error at a time
functionality..10 fieldsall required..none filled
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 15:47
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
Personally the #1 reason I hate CFFORM is the one error at a time
functionality..10 fieldsall required..none filled inform
PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 15:49
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
I do both. If the JS is enabled then you do not waste system
resources
processing the page looking for validation errors, if JS is disbaled
you
are
covered. I think you should always do both: helps ensure data
Charlie,
If you don't want to dive right into the Qforms API, i put a short
'tutorial' online to show some js form field validation (a couple that I
don't believe can be accomplished thru cfform...but i could be wrong
there).
It's at http://charlie.griefer.com/js_validation.html (view
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: Charlie Griefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
- Original
of validators, and has an extension method for writing your own validators.
Good stuff.
Regards,
John Paul Ashenfelter
CTO/TransitionPoint
- Original Message -
From: Charlie Griefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: Kola Oyedeji [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:59 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
-Original Message
Ok that's interesting, but then won't the user get back an error message
saying:
Please fill in TextInput1?
If the name of the form field is fname20...I don't necessarily want the
user to see :Please fill in fname20.
I'd prefer them to see :Please provide a name.
How would you do that...for say
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Ok that's interesting, but then won't the user get back an error message
saying:
Please fill in TextInput1?
If the name of the form field is fname20...I don't necessarily want the
user to see :Please fill in fname20.
I'd prefer them to see :Please provide a name
Sorry I thought Everyone knew Dan G. Switzer, II (creator of qForms!) :-)
WG
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 July 2003 15:54
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Tags??
CF Tags??
Really??
!_!
Who's Dan?
Do you have them?
Who's Dan
qForms allows some flexibility in this area...
- Original Message -
From: Angel Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Ok that's interesting, but then won't the user get back an error message
Charlie,
I know other people who subscribe to your 'one error at a time' theory. I
don't disagree with it...but I feel that if there are 10 (required)
fields...and the user enters none...well what are the odds that the user
isn't going to fill out a single field? IMO, good design would
In particular, see here: http://www.pengoworks.com/qforms/docs/faq.htm
- Original Message -
From: Angel Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Ok that's interesting, but then won't the user get
: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Charlie,
If you don't want to dive right into the Qforms API, i put a short
'tutorial' online to show some js form field validation (a couple that I
don't believe can be accomplished thru cfform...but i could be wrong
there).
It's at http://charlie.griefer.com
Ok that's interesting, but then won't the user get back an error message
saying:
Please fill in TextInput1?
Yes, but to change that, give it a useful description:
oForm.textInput1.description = first name;
Now instead of saying textInput1, it'll place first name into the error
message.
If
Charlie,
I think my 'reluctance' to look at qForms is because...well, frankly I
enjoy
writing js. I'm hesitant to give up that 'control' as it were.
I don't look at it is giving up control--I think that's the cool part about
it. The way I view it, is it gives a solid footprint in which to
This describes my attitude as well, and to segue a bit, how do you
feel about Flash/Actionscript?
On the surface...I keep thinking to myself that I should love
Actionscript, it's really all that Javascript wants to be, but I keep
getting frustrated with it.
I think it comes down to two problems
Jon,
One guy hacking it, is probably going to be more efficient
with his own stuff.
I immensely disagree with this statement (of course, I wrote the API. g) I
think even individuals greatly benefit from qForms. I don't really equate
Fusebox and qForms, because qForms isn't telling you how to
Dan wrote:
For example, take the following lines of code:
OK I'm convinced.
Naturally, this thread pops up just *after* I get done building a great
big form system for a project I'm working on; with custom server-side
val all over the place.
The real crime is I forgot all about qforms, but
I don't mean efficient as in the amount of time it takes to code
(obviously using a pre-built api saves coding time), I mean time to
learn + coding time.
When I weigh, the time it would take to get comfortable with an API
versus rolling my own, the time gained by using something other than
the
*sneaks back into the conversation*
Sooo...uhhh...which part of that code disables the submit button.
Is there any means of preventing form fields from being resubmitted if
the user keeps clicking the Refresh button with the Qforms API?
That's about the last common error I think I encounter when
Is there any means of preventing form fields from being
resubmitted if
the user keeps clicking the Refresh button with the Qforms API?
That's about the last common error I think I encounter when designing
forms.
This would be outside the scope of capabilities for a client-side validation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:04 AM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Charlie,
If you don't want to dive right into the Qforms API, i put a short
'tutorial' online to show some js form field validation (a couple that I
don't believe can
Angel,
Sooo...uhhh...which part of that code disables the submit button.
qForms automatically handles this. Just creating the qForms object takes
care of that for you.
Is there any means of preventing form fields from being resubmitted if
the user keeps clicking the Refresh button with the
Jon,
I don't mean efficient as in the amount of time it takes to code
(obviously using a pre-built api saves coding time), I mean time to
learn + coding time.
When I weigh, the time it would take to get comfortable with an API
versus rolling my own, the time gained by using something other
Or check out terra form. It has the qForms api built into it.
http://www.electricsheep.co.nz/terraform/
-Original Message-
From: webguy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:52 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
I think someone on the qforms list built
Check out the site and view the first demo, the source code spans for miles!
- Original Message -
From: John Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0
Or check out terra form. It has the qForms api
T. Tangorre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
I do both. If the JS is enabled then you do not waste system resources
processing the page looking for validation errors, if JS is disbaled you
are
covered. I
http://www.electricsheep.co.nz/
- Original Message -
From: Michael T. Tangorre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0
Check out the site and view the first demo, the source code spans for
miles
Is the path to cfform.js correct?
WG
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 21 July 2003 18:19
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFForm madness. 0_0
Okies..
I am totally stumped by this.
This is my code:
cfform ACTION=testval.cfm METHOD=post NAME=contactform
remove the ENABLECAB=yes ??
- Original Message -
From: Angel Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:18 PM
Subject: CFForm madness. 0_0
Okies..
I am totally stumped by this.
This is my code:
cfform ACTION=testval.cfm METHOD=post
I know the answer! I know the answer! And if someone answers my question on
cf_fax I'll be even more grateful.
Angel -- nothing is wrong. Because ColdFusion looks at your validations of
required=yes and message=whatever and turns it into Javascript validation on your
server. This is
Initial thoughts are that you don't have a CFIDE/scripts/ directory or
Virtual Dir coming off the root of that website
HTH
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 18:19
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFForm madness. 0_0
Okies..
I am totally
Heh...I think you are correct.
Although I'm quite surprised since that should be mapped on all these
sites.
*sigh*
Thanks though :)
Will talk to the server admin and throw some stale muffins his way.
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Mike Townend [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Initial
72 matches
Mail list logo
