But Will...
JS is client-side, and CF is server-side...
The whole universe could convert to CF (and I'd probably be out of a
job!) and we'd still need JS or something like it (unless, with the
mass conversion, MM created a CF-based browser that could use CF
With all due respect you missed my
Hello list!
It's 12.47pm and I didn't go to sleep last night. Thank the goddess
for illegal stimulants.
So I'm bashing my exhausted head on the desk with this error message:
--
The system has attempted to use an undefined value, which usually
indicates a programming error, either in your
And seconds after crying for help, I realised what it was: a null field
in my backend database that can't be null.
I know, I know. I'm very tired, okay?
Sorry to waste everybody's bandwidth.
Best regards,
CK.
~|
Logware
I believe that scoping is important and removed ambiguity, especially for
developers (including yourself) who may latter have to work on that page.
I would opine that scoping is a best practice.
- Calvin
-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March
Having said all that, what's with the Amazon ship date? I ordered two copies
of the first one!
- Calvin
-Original Message-
From: Ben Forta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 3:07 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Ordering WACK from Amazon
Very good point. And that is the
Blatant self plug...
I put together a brief blog entry that provides quick coverage of how to avoid
using evaluate().
http://steve.coldfusionjournal.com/read/1135458.htm
Steve Bryant
Bryant Web Consulting LLC
http://www.BryantWebConsulting.com/
http://steve.coldfusionjournal.com/
Hi, I try to
Shouldnt line 149 read:
CFSET diff = #DateDiff(d, Now(), deadline)#
Originally your pounds are on the inside of the datefunction.
CFSET diff = DateDiff(d, Now(), #deadline#)
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion
I believe that scoping is important and removed ambiguity
Right, however, in some circumstances, ambiguity may be a useful feature.
For instance, not specifying the form or url scope for a variable can
make a template work both as a form action or as an href called template
with parameters
They're equivalent, but you don't need any #'s at all:
cfset diff = DateDiff(d, Now(), deadline) /
-Joe
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:26:27 -0400, Will Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shouldnt line 149 read:
CFSET diff = #DateDiff(d, Now(), deadline)#
Originally your pounds are on the
That is definitely true, however, it can also be undesirable, for example a
developer might want form submissions to only arrive via post and not get.
I prefer to try to code using scopes and typically use something similar to
this in the case you mentioned (one may note that this is copied from
They're equivalent, but you don't need any #'s at all:
cfset diff = DateDiff(d, Now(), deadline) /
Joe,
I know it's not a biggie, but that means the #'s actually would slow it down a
little?
Thanks,
Will
~|
Logware
looks like scoping AND no scoping are desirable depending on the application.
Kinda goes back to my registering to purchase a product question. It's an
application-specific question, not a broad application development question.
Will
one may note that this is copied from
fusebox's functionality
Yes, but this is one of the things I hate the most in FB: using the attributes
structure, so that one never knows if a template is used as a custom tag or not.
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom
looks like scoping AND no scoping are desirable depending on the
application.
Exact, that's one of the advantages of using a weakly or dynimically
typed language.
Since both scoping and no scoping (or default scoping) are features of
CF, rules like never do or always do
can only make the
and while im here, is it safe for me to assume that application.cfc
is set off just like application.cfm (for each and every page request)
and that the methods inside application.cfc are sparked when its their
turn...
onApplicationStart = only happens when the application first starts (so other
I do see your point... and further, I still disagree...
With all due respect, is the AND comparison operator.
And == is the IS comparison operator.
My point was that JS isn't all that hard to read and write once you learn it.
My new point is that if all languages were as easy to write as CF,
Typos, typos...
i=i+1, for one... not i=1+1.
And as far as preferring the JS-style syntax in cfscript, it's a style
thing. It looks better and is less cluttered... I definitely use more
tag-style code than cfscript, but I also use cfscript wherever I can
simply to produce cleaner, more readable
Shouldn't, but it's harder to read w/ #'s.
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:32:19 -0400, Will Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They're equivalent, but you don't need any #'s at all:
cfset diff = DateDiff(d, Now(), deadline) /
Joe,
I know it's not a biggie, but that means the #'s actually
But it IS a broad application-development question!
You can't decide *not* to scope a variable until you know *why* you
would scope one to begin with. You can't decide to rely on CF's
default scoping capabilities successfully until you know all the
implications of them. It is a broad app-dev
Anyway, I find other programming languages as fascinating as I do
other human languages, and think the landscape would be barren and
ugly without them.
Smalltalk, lacking in constructs but beautiful none-the-less :O)
Ade
-Original Message-
From: Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC
-Original Message-
From: Johnny Le [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 12:33 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Best practice question?
Is it better to do this:
cfoutput query=GetCourses
#Dept_ID# #CorName# #CorLevel#br
/cfoutput
or this:
cfoutput
yep, you got it.
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:13:34 -0500, Tony Weeg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and while im here, is it safe for me to assume that application.cfc
is set off just like application.cfm (for each and every page request)
and that the methods inside application.cfc are sparked when its
In CFC, I always do this:
cffunction name = something
cfargument name=some required=true type=string/
cfset var few = arguments.some/
cfset few = 10/
/cffunction
If we should always scope our variables. Should I do this?
cfset var variables.few = arguments.some/
cfset variables.few = 10/
The
In Ben Forta's study guide, on page 100, he says CLIENT
variables can store only simple data (like numbers and
strings), not complex data (like arrays, structures, and queries).
This is correct. Client variables are stored in places that can only accept
character data.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig
-Original Message-
From: Johnny Le [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 3:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Best practice question?
In CFC, I always do this:
cffunction name = something
cfargument name=some required=true type=string/
cfset var few =
With all due respect you missed my point. Or maybe I didn't
make it clear. It wasnt to get rid of JS, but rather for it
to written as easily as CF. CF makes sense.
cfif getquery.theID EQ blablah
do this
/cfif
The same thing in JS goes somethin like this.
for (i=0;ig.length;i++)
In CFC, I always do this:
cffunction name = something
cfargument name=some required=true type=string/
cfset var few = arguments.some/ cfset few = 10/ /cffunction
If we should always scope our variables. Should I do this?
cfset var variables.few = arguments.some/ cfset
variables.few
I know it's not a biggie, but that means the #'s actually
would slow it down a little?
No, probably not to a noticeable degree. However, you would then be using
pound signs unnecessarily, which indicates that you may be unsure when you
need to use them and when you don't. An easy-to-remember
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 05:46:26 -0400, Will Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, so I exaggerated, but who's the numb skull that came up with ++ and ??
And ==?
Kernighan and Ritchie, when they invented C I think. But there are far
worse syntactic monstrosities out there. C++ has a delightful
any ideas...
a-googling i went... and a-googling was not finding anything!
-
Web Server Connector Configuration Error
Status: ERROR
Additional Notes: ERROR - JNDI port 2920 for server coldfusion is not active
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:06:43 -0500, Andrew Tyrone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might be crazy, but I seem to remember, at least in CF 4.x versions, that
if you scoped a query column within a cfoutput, it would only output the
data in the first row of the query, not the current row, no matter
Learnin alot here from you guys.
But there *must* be quite a few of us that don't like JS, don't take the time
to write it ourselves because it takes much longer than writing:
cfinput name=search type=text required=yes message=Please enter a
search term
I use that one all the time. lol
1. i have no firewall or firewall software running on this box.
2. my install was server configuration (iis)
thanks.
tw
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:22:03 -0500, Tony Weeg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
any ideas...
a-googling i went... and a-googling was not finding anything!
But there *must* be quite a few of us that don't like JS,
don't take the time to write it ourselves because it takes
much longer than writing:
cfinput name=search type=text required=yes
message=Please enter a search term
I use that one all the time. lol
In exchange for having
any ideas...
a-googling i went... and a-googling was not finding anything!
-
Web Server Connector Configuration Error
Status: ERROR
Additional Notes: ERROR - JNDI port 2920 for server
coldfusion is not active
You had to use the query name in cfloop but not in cfoutput.
That's the only rule there was... at least that I recall...
so this worked:
cfoutput query=qryName#colName#/cfoutput
And this worked:
cfloop query=qryName#qryName.colName#/cfloop
But this would only output the first row for every
isnt it just better to use
cfloop query=
/cfloop
and only output when you need to output?
or wrap the cfoutput around the whole thing?
just wondering... im a big fan of
cfloop from = 1 to = #myQuery.recordCount# id = i
/cloop
and then make myself access everything with
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:06:43 -0500, Andrew Tyrone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I might be crazy, but I seem to remember, at least in CF 4.x versions,
that
if you scoped a query column within a cfoutput, it would only output the
data in the first row of the query, not the current row, no
You might try running netstat from a command prompt to see if anything's
listening on that port. That said, I've occasionally been stymied running
into this problem with previous versions of CFMX - nothing appeared to be
using the port, yet the web server connector couldn't connect to it.
so
so there should be something on that port?
Yes, the JRun server should be listening on that port if the web server
configuration utility plans to connect to it.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:39:35 -0500, Jim Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:06:43 -0500, Andrew Tyrone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I might be crazy, but I seem to remember, at least in CF 4.x versions,
that
if you scoped a query column within a cfoutput, it would only
Huh? FCKEditor has a spell checker, and has had it for some time.
Its listed right on the feature set on the front page. Its a
3rd-party plugin, but it works quite well.
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:47:02 -0500, Douglas Knudsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what was your answer to 'I can not spell woth
well...
i did the default install directories, and it worked perfectly?
must be something with the dev. edition install and the inability to
use dir's other than the defaults?
tony
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:58:15 -0500, Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so there should be something on that
i did the default install directories, and it worked perfectly?
must be something with the dev. edition install and the
inability to use dir's other than the defaults?
No, those things shouldn't make any difference. See if this helps:
I am looking for a method to calculate the cost of running multiple,
simultaneous processing jobs on a computer cluster.
For example, I am renting cluster time at $XX/hour. I can run multiple jobs,
but the cost is always $XX/hour regardless of the number of parallel,
simultaneous jobs running.
In Ben Forta's study guide, on page 100, he says CLIENT
variables can store only simple data (like numbers and
strings), not complex data (like arrays, structures, and queries).
This is correct. Client variables are stored in places that can only accept
character data
BUT there's a way
I wrote this a long time ago as a proof-of-concept when I was trying
to figure out how to store arrays in client vars. Substitute my query
for yours. Something simple with a field or two.
Clearly if you need to store a structure in a persistent scope there
are better ways to do it, but this
Matt Robertson wrote:
Huh? FCKEditor has a spell checker, and has had it for some time.
Its listed right on the feature set on the front page. Its a
3rd-party plugin, but it works quite well.
Well, it wasn't in the 2.0 beta releases, RC1, or RC2... they didn't add
it back in until RC3.
-Original Message-
From: Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 6:09 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Best practice question?
The odd thing is with queries should you use indexed notation you get a
different value. While the value of
-Original Message-
From: Will Tomlinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 5:53 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: client variable: simple or complex?
In Ben Forta's study guide, on page 100, he says CLIENT
variables can store only simple data (like numbers and
Explicit scoping _IS_always_ the best idea, unless you have a
compelling rationale to break with the best practice.
and vice versa ;-)
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom tags;
See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm
(Please send any
I'm not referring to the 'betas' of FCKEditor (the author means well
but seems to have reinvented development cycle terminology). I'm
staying away from it until its final. I'm referencing v1.6. I
replaced ActivEdit with FCKEditor 1.6 some time ago. The file upload
capability was
Thanks for the clarification, Jim... I think your point came across
more clearly the second time thru. I've never tried the
query.column[1] method... I honestly didn't think it would work. Ya
learn something new every day, eh?
And you're absolutely right, we can do things with our variables that
isnt it just better to use
cfloop query=
/cfloop
and only output when you need to output?
Then you loose the GROUP facility in the CFOUTPUT tag.
If I remember well, the CFLOOP tag was introduced in version 3 or so to add
facilities than the CFOUTPUT tag had not. But it can't replace it
yeah, version 1 had a hook to use iSpell which is great for
individuals, but the license required a purchase for use enterprise
wide and iSpell required a client side install, something of a real
PITA to get approved for an intranet of 20,000 employees. Activedit
was therefore a cheaper route in
if i have to install again, and run into it, i guess ill try that
stuff... but for now, i just wasted
5 hours of dev. time effing with this crap :(
i need to get some work done before i get ready for this week!
:) cheers!
tw
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:45:08 -0500, Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
yeah, version 1 had a hook to use iSpell which is great for
individuals, but the license required a purchase for use enterprise
wide and iSpell required a client side install, something of a real
PITA to get approved for an intranet of 20,000 employees. Activedit
was therefore a cheaper route in
No, probably not to a noticeable degree.
I imagine it's probably none at all - probably winds up with same
bytecode in the end?
-Joe
--
For Tabs, Trees, and more, use the jComponents:
http://clearsoftware.net/client/jComponents.cfm
What surprise me is that this would not work at all, not even the value of the
first row. It actually throws an error:
cfoutput#colName#/cfoutput
I thought that query result variables do not require prefix if in a cfoutput
loop, and query result variable is actually the first scope in the
I thought that query result variables do not require prefix
if in a cfoutput loop, and query result variable is
actually the first scope in the order of evaluation that
coldfusion would look for. I guess cfoutput/cfoutput
alone is not a loop. I guess you need the query attribute to
I'm guessing that unless you've got 20 million of them in a page,
they're blitzed after the first run... so they're only going to slow
things down in a development environment or for very dynamic pages
that can't be cached in some way.
No matter how you slice it though, the characters have to be
most importantly, you will impress your peers with your superb
knowledge in 'The Use of Pound Signs' ;)
D
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:29:23 -0600, Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm guessing that unless you've got 20 million of them in a page,
they're blitzed after the
I'm guessing that unless you've got 20 million of them in
a page,
they're blitzed after the first run... so they're only
going to slow
things down in a development environment or for very
dynamic pages
that can't be cached in some way.
Well it would have to be a page for which the Java
most importantly, you will impress your peers with your
superb knowledge in 'The Use of Pound Signs' ;)
I'm always very impressed by this knowledge. :)
s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
No, probably not to a noticeable degree.
I imagine it's probably none at all - probably winds up
with same
bytecode in the end?
Yes although at some point that # symbol does have to be removed
during the process of converting CFML to java bytecode. Though it
generally only happens once after
Right, however, in some circumstances, ambiguity
may be a useful feature. For instance, not
specifying the form or url scope for a variable
can make a template work both as a form action or
as an href called template with parameters passed
in the url.
That's why I like the way FuseBox
This sounds great, but isn't the args variable has its own scope too? It is
variables scope, isn't it? Since it declares locally in the function, I am not
sure if its scope is variables, but it has a scope of something. So if you
have scope everything, you would have to do
-Original Message-
From: Johnny Le [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 10:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Best practice question?
This sounds great, but isn't the args variable has its own scope too? It
is variables scope, isn't it? Since it declares locally in
I am new to both of these features, but I am getting the hang of them. My
question is: What is the difference between them?
What are the pro's and cons to each?
If I create a CFC with a several methods in it is that not the same thing if
I have one template with the several functions on it?
Johnny,
Technically, yeah, that's exactly right.
If you want to see all your scopes and all their contents, try this:
cfdump var=#getPageContext().getBuiltinScopes()# /
That will dump every built-in scope, or those available to any page,
special tag scopes notwithstanding, including:
cffile
cgi
Oops,
Apparently I didn't read the example given quite thoroughly enough...
sorry for any confusion I may have contributed to. Just trying to
spread the joy! (Or, welcome to my world!) ;)
J
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:16:58 -0500, Jim Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
What is the difference between them?
A CFC is generally used to encapsulate portions of business logic into a
reusable API that can be called by one or more applications in different
ways. You can use a CFC to publish a web service that can be called from
anywhere, or you can use it as a
-Original Message-
From: David Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 12:19 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFC or UDF
I am new to both of these features, but I am getting the hang of them. My
question is: What is the difference between them?
These are very big
73 matches
Mail list logo
