I think Mike nailed it. People who say that CFC should not create html must also think that no class in java can create output, and that clearly won't fly (since java has nothing but classes). CFCs should have a single, clear purpose. If that purpose includes creating html than so be it. The OO property of encapsulation key; define your interfaces (the public functions) carefully and you'll be in a good place. These says I create Custom Tags less and less often. They are still useful, of course, and sometimes they are perfect for the problem at hand, but CFCs are so flexible and powerful that I use them for may tasks that I would had done with Custom Tags before.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:59 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: bad cfc practice but why? This is not a rule of CFCs, just a 'suggestion' from some of the people using them. There logic is to separate the logic of an application from its presentation. This allows for easy change of the presentation without touching the logic. The argument is logical, but not necessarily the rule. I ignore it when logic dictates that it should be ignored. For example, I have a single comment component that has all of the code and display to handle a comment. I see no reason to have the display in another template and if someone else was using the component and wanted a different display, they could just inherit my component and change the display method. But that might be considered bad OOP, which is an argument I also ignore when logic dictates. If you find that you have a reason to include display in the same component as logic, pay particular attention to the output attribute and what it does. > Thing is I know I'm not supposed to put any presentation stuff in them. > But say for example I had a poll cfc. I can run all of the actions > through the CFC fine, but why not add some optional basic html (i.e. > form & results) so that if wanted, the whole poll could be > encapsulated within the one file and in theory could be added to any > site with just a couple of lines of code. If the basic form & results > didn't suit I could then go for a tailored option for the sites that > needed it but all would still be based on the one cfc. > > So would this a bad thing and why? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe® Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7. Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:272012 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
