> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Personally I am never using CFSETTING ENABLECFOUTPUTONLY,
>> instead I am
>> using cfsilent (for plain templates) and output="no" for
>> cfc/cffunction.
>>
>> Since the cfsetting/enabelcfoutputonly is set for the
>> whole request,
>> until the cfsetting is changed, I feel that it breaks
>> encapsulation --
>> one loses control/overview over where it is set and not
>> when using a
>> chain of includes. If it is used then I would use it
>> application-wide,
>> but for now I am happy with cfsilent!
>>
> I am not using cfsetting in the CFC -- I am using it in
> the calling
> code. In my CFC I have output="false" for the cfcomponent
> and all my
> cffunction tags. So I'm not breaking encapsulation, rather
> the CF
> engine is by applying the cfsetting in my calling code to
> my CFC as
> well. Perhaps this is a bug? That's not a rhetorical
> question -- I'm
> honestly not sure.
Well that's why he said it "breaks encapsulation" is because it
applies to the entire request -- if you happen to be using cfc's in
your request, then by golly, it applies to the CFC because it's part
of that request. You can of course choose to reset cfsetting within
your cfc methods if you feel you need to. I've been modifying a few of
my own templates recently and cosciously adding <cfoutput> around some
items I might normally not have because I realized that another
developer using the onTap framework might have enablecfoutputonly
active in their configuration, so I just output around anything I
think might get damaged by that. In my case it's not been terribly
difficult -- it's only a marginal handful of custom tags being used
for their end-tag syntax.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
