I think maybe you misread me. I wasn't proposing that people use <cf_foo></cf_foo> exactly as written. What I meant was,
<cf_layout> stuff </cf_layout> Using <cf_foo></cf_foo> normally would be meaningless. You can, as you say, write code to ignore the closing call. You don't have to actually check executionMode, if you simply add <cfexit method="exittag"> to the end of your custom tag, you will ensure it is only run in "start" mode. On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:03:05 -0500, Gaulin, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I totally agree with Raymond but have one comment to make: > > "I'll go out on a limb here and say if your site will not work > when using <cf_foo></cf_foo> versus an include, then you have other > problems." > > There are special issues when you use the closing </cf_foo> tag because CF > will call your tag twice, once for the opening tag and once for the closing > tag. Tags can be written to handle this properly but I almost never do > (unless the tag is designed to work with a closing tag). So, yeah, this > calling style can hurt a site, so use just <cf_foo> to replace <cfinclude > template="foo"> > > Mark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:59 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: CFMODULE vs. CFINCLUDE > > I'd agree with Simon, specifically the "not that it's a huge big > deal". I'll go out on a limb here and say if your site will not work > when using <cf_foo></cf_foo> versus an include, then you have other > problems. > > Yes, cf_foo (or cfmodule) is slower than cfinclue. > But don't worry about it. > > Unless you are running Spectra and have 500 or so custom tags running > at once, it will never be a real issue. > > I'd always go for the custom tag solution since it protects your > calling documents from having their variables screwed up by the > customtag/cfinclude code. > > "e) Allows you to cycle in special headers/footers at any time rather than > editing a central display template." > > You can also just simply not use the custom tag on a page that needs > something special. > > "Also, all content between the tags is loaded into a variable called > generatedcontent. " > > I don't think it's copied, I'm pretty sure it is a reference. Did you > notice that you can modify this value and it changes what is between > the tags? You don't have to return anything, just reset it. > > If I can summarize, I do not believe the performance reasons are a > valid concern. I'd go with the syntax you are most comfortable with. > Just remember that, all things being considered, the custom tag method > is safer to your calling document. > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:22:37 +0000, Simon Horwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not that it's a huge deal, but don't forget that cfmodule also requires > > a single file compilatation as opossed to two file compilations, as well ;) > > > > ~Simon > > > > Simon Horwith > > Chief Information Officer, AboutWeb > > http://www.aboutweb.com > > Member of Team Macromedia > > Macromedia Certified Master Instructor > > Editor-in-Chief, ColdFusion Developers Journal > > Blog - http://www.horwith.com > > > > > > > > > > Katz, Dov B (IT) wrote: > > > > >CFModule encapsulates the layout nicer than 2 isolated CFINCLUDES... > > > > > >You have a single layout.cfm which detects if #thistag.executionmode# is > > >"start" and shows the header or footer. It makes for an easier read if > > >the module is CF_TAGNAME'd.. > > > > > >Example... You have layout.cfm, so you can do this: > > > > > ><CF_LAYOUT> > > > my page > > ></CF_LAYOUT> > > > > > >That's more elegant than cfinclude header, cfinclude footer, and allows > > >you to pass in custom arguments since it's using cfmodule under the > > >covers. > > > > > >That's my take on things > > > > > >-dov > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:46 PM > > >To: CF-Talk > > >Subject: CFMODULE vs. CFINCLUDE > > > > > >I'm rewriting Raymond's Lighthouse Bugtracker (not my idea) and one > > >piece bought up an old question I had. Is there any performance > > >difference between a CFMODULE acting as a layout wrapper or 2 CFINCLUDE > > >templates with layout? > > >In the first case, your code is: > > ><cfmodule template="layout.cfm"> > > >Display stuff > > ></cfmodule> > > > > > >In the second case you have: > > ><CFINCLUDE template="header"> > > >Display Stuff > > ><CFINCLUDE template="footer"> > > > > > >Because of the nature of the CFMODULE, it's called twice and various > > >variables are created in its process. The CFINCLUDE method uses 2 > > >CFINCLUDES, but there's nothing special about them. No extra variables, > > >etc. > > > > > >Logic says that the CFINCLUDE method of template layout is more > > >efficient, but I'd like to know what others think? > > > > > >I'll ask the question about what people think of the pagecontext include > > >vs. > > >cfinclude another time. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:185741 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
