Barry Beattie wrote: > turn the cfincludes/cfmodules into functions wrapped with CFC's? and > use the names of the cfincludes/cfmodules as the function names? > > This gets messy when you have templates nested 3 or 4 deep... > just a thought > > IMHO, the biggest benefit is to have a defined API that can be tested > against: arguments come in, return values come out. it's the "iffy" > things like external variables being modified within the page that get > on my goat... > > > by abstracting functionality into functions (well, der...) the whole > lot should be clearer and easier to manage. At least you've made some > lego blocks (and not the origional raw plastic beads) to move around > into something more cohesive.... > > ...turn the Ravioli into a meal > > That is what I was hoping to hear... I guess at least it's start. > just be thankful it's CF and not ASPX and CS files you're working with. > wanna swap? > > If it was just CS, maybe, but I go insane dealing with ASP/Basic Syntax. So no :p > my 2c only > barry.b > > > > > > > > > On 3/9/06, Haikal Saadh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> Let's say you're cleaning up an application that it a bit of a rat's >> nest of cfincludes and cfmodules. A framework that is a loose >> interpretation of fusebox circa CF4 or 5. >> >> Now, a consequence of having an app like this is that the variables >> scope gets really cluttered, and it's only a matter of time before >> collisions occur. Sticking chunks of inline code into a function can >> help with this, but I am wary of function name collisions happening. >> (Remember, this is cfinclude heaven (or hell)). I could make components, >> but it seems a little crazy to create components willy nilly as well, >> and these are really specific operations which in all likelihood will >> not be used outside that particular include. >> >> Is my concern about function name collisions valid? Should I just >> collect inline code into functions at wanton? Or should I just bite the >> bullet and write components, at the risk of ending up with Ravioli (look >> it up) code ? >> >> Must as I'd like to throw the thing out and start over, they're not >> going to let me do that. So in the meantime, bandaids needs to applied, >> and I'm trying to "do least harm" as much as possible. >>
-- Haikal Saadh, Applications Programmer Teaching and Learning Support Services K405, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus [EMAIL PROTECTED], 3864 8633 CRICOS No. 00213J --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
