I remember forta strongly advising against it. Don't remember why, but he
suggested that all you have in it is the tag.
With includes, you have full control over when they are included or not.
-Original Message-
From: Austin Govella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, Decem
gt;
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 tag.
>
> With includes, you have full control over when they a
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
> 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 som
> 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 ju
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.
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
>
3 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
> -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, bu
ther and use them as custom tags instead.
Not really necessary, but I like typing 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 i
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
