expect. Just think of CFSETTING as turning on a request-level flag (which
affects ALL templates in the request), indicating that nothing should be
output.
I'd recommend always putting generated content inside CFOUTPUT tags anyway.
And yes, that means that if you use CFOUTPUT query="" group="" that you'll
have to do some nasty tag nesting. Of course, those loops don't happen a
lot (ungrouped loops with CFLOOP are the norm), so it's not a big deal.
Cheers,
barneyb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:58 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: cfset vs. cfsavecontent
>
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:18:05 +0200, Hugo Ahlenius
> <[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.
>
> Regards,
> Dave.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
