I assume the GNOME scope is only used for really short variables, yes?
(sorry, I just couldn't resist)
:)
--
Cheers!
Michael David
-- Original Message --
From: Stephens, Larry V steph...@iu.edu
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: 6/21/2012 9:26:48 AM
Subject: RE: Best
-
From: Ubqtous
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:07 PM
Subject: Re[2]: Best Practices
Mickael,
On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 7:41:27 PM, you wrote:
M But my form method is post not get wouldn't that cause that to
M fail?
Nope... you can do both!
~ Ubqtous ~
[Todays
Calvin Ward said:
However, it doesn't feel like it is a good solution.
What does the HTTP specification say about performing GET and POST
operations on the same request?
That it is not possible. HTTP requests can only have one verb.
Jochem
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Best Practices
Calvin Ward said:
However, it doesn't feel like it is a good solution.
What does the HTTP specification say about performing GET and POST
operations on the same request?
That it is not possible. HTTP requests can only have one verb.
Jochem
[Todays
And incidentally, I wonder how it is handled if you send the
same named variable in the query string and a form field with
method POST... If it were 2 form fields with the same name,
you would typically get a comma delimited list, but I suspect
that it might not work that way with the query
Doesn't everyone?:-)
-Original Message-
From: Philip Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:20 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Best Practices
And incidentally, I wonder how it is handled if you send the
same named variable in the query string
Calvin Ward said:
I suppose it seems that since the url parameter is not part of the
form itself, isn't it a GET, even when you've specified a POST as
the method in the form?
HTTP requests can only have one verb, so a request is either a GET or
a POST (or a HEAD, OPTIONS, PUT etc.). Please
I suppose it seems that since the url parameter is not
part of the form itself, isn't it a GET, even when you've
specified a POST as the method in the form?
No. If you look at the text of the HTTP request in such a case, the first
line would look something like this:
POST
Thanks Dave and everyone
It works great!
- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Best Practices
I suppose it seems that since the url parameter is not
part of the form itself, isn't it a GET, even when you've
The question was theoritical in nature, not everyone scopes variables, I'm sure we all realize.
- Calvin
- Original Message -
From: Philip Arnold
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:19 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Best Practices
And incidentally, I wonder how it is handled
-
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 November 2003 14:25
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Best Practices
The question was theoritical in nature, not everyone scopes
variables, I'm sure we all realize.
- Calvin
- Original Message -
From: Philip Arnold
To: CF
On Thursday 13 Nov 2003 14:37 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i.e. a search form where parameters can come in either the URL or FORM
scope... what do you do... scope them out and have double the coding
work?
what would be the best practice in that case?
formurl2attributes :-)
--
Tom Chiverton
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Best Practices
sometimes better not to scope (admittedly not very often)
i.e. a search form where parameters can come in either the URL or FORM
scope... what do you do... scope them out and have double the coding
work?
what would be the best practice in that case?
-dc
ack, I answered this too quickly and didn't read it carefully.
formurl2attributes is a good solution for that!
Calvin
- Original Message -
From: Calvin Ward
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Best Practices
In my opinion stick with one
-
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 November 2003 14:25
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Best Practices
The question was theoritical in nature, not everyone scopes
variables, I'm sure we all realize.
- Calvin
- Original Message -
From: Philip Arnold
To: CF-Talk
Sent
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Best Practices
In my opinion stick with one scope, form if you are using POST.
I'm curious in what circumstances a query string is superior to a hidden
field from a design perspective.
Thanks,
Calvin
ok ok ... promise not to do it next time :-)
-Original Message-
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 November 2003 14:47
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Best Practices
ack, I answered this too quickly and didn't read it carefully.
formurl2attributes is a good
I use fusebox now.And url and form scopes becomes attributes. this makes things easy
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:37 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Best Practices
sometimes better not to scope (admittedly not very often)
i.e
Mickael,
On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 7:41:27 PM, you wrote:
M But my form method is post not get wouldn't that cause that to
M fail?
Nope... you can do both!
~ Ubqtous ~
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
Remember that in CFMX 6.1 the post method has been deprecated. As a result
you do not need to use the method attribute as it defaults to post anyway.
You would still require it for get and in my opinion it is good coding
practice to still use the method=post attribute when writng your code for
Remember that in CFMX 6.1 the post method has been
deprecated. As a result you do not need to use the
method attribute as it defaults to post anyway.
This isn't the case. POST and GET are ways to make HTTP requests, and CFMX
can't deprecate them - it has nothing to do with how the browser
Sweet!! I've missed this in my mailbox!
Looking forward to seeing new content!
jim
On Tuesday, February 05, 2002, Michael wrote:
MD Your in luck. An index of Fusion Authority articles was just put up. In it
MD the ability to comment and rate articles. We're getting back into the
MD
MD, that's great! A search facility would be nice also :)
-Original Message-
From: Jim Priest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2002 9:21 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re[2]: Best Practices - Fusion Authority back!
Sweet!! I've missed this in my mailbox!
Looking forward
23 matches
Mail list logo
