Sure, First things first.... I did not read your post in its entirety so the context of disagreeing with you, goes right out the window:-)
But to keep the subject in its context, I do wonder what was going through the developers minds when they created the LSDateFormat and for what purpose. But I can tell you this. The code behind LSDateFormat is identical to DateFormat, the only difference is that LSDateFormat has a wrapper to call DateFormat and guess what DateFormat returns the default Locale. So my question is this, why? I can see that with the new argument locale, that could be the only reason behind it. Anyway, I speak from a Software Engineer point of view and I do not see any reason for 2 functions that technically do the same thing. Now let's talk about cfhtmlhead. While converting some of my extJS code over to coldfusion 8, I found that a lot of it broke with JS code couldn't be found. Yet there they are in the view source, so when I went investigating and did some further tests, the JS HAS to be in the html HEAD tag. So with that in mind I got told that is why this tag exists. So let's now look at why this is a hack at its best. To use this as it currently is one has to do this. <cfsavecontent variable="Test"> ... Some JS code. </cfsavecontent> <cfhtmlhead text="#Test#"> Now I can't discuss where I am talking about this, but I can tell you that I have full support on some recommendations from suggested by Sean Corfield and it has been filed as an ER. My reasoning is simple, the one thing I hate is messy code, JS all over the place code not where it should be etc. And I didn't even know about this tag, until a few weeks ago. But let's look at the CF8 Ajax stuff. If it was me and I knew that this tag had to exist why could it not have been designed to do this. <cfhtmlhead language="Javascript"> ...Some JS Code </cfhtmlhead> Or even <cfhtmlhead language="vbScript"> ...Some JS Code </cfhtmlhead> Or <cfhtmlhead style="CSS"> ...Some CSS styles </cfhtmlhead> Can you understand how a little more though would make something like this tag, appear to have not been thrown in at the last minute? Andrew Scott Senior Coldfusion Developer Aegeon Pty. Ltd. www.aegeon.com.au Phone: +613 9015 8628 Mobile: 0404 998 273 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Arehart (lists account) Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2008 6:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [cfaussie] Re: should DateFormat() be depricated (in favour ofLSDateFormat())? I'm not sure I want to be dragged into this, but I'll offer at least one reply. Can you clarify what you mean to say you disagree with? It's not clear. Are you challenging why people used DateFormat historically over LSDateformat? Or debating that I've erred in how/why people have not moved to the latter? I didn't think it was debatable, just historical. But if you see it differently... As for your saying, "the only difference is that LSDateFormat takes an option argument called locale", what do you mean? The locale argument is new in CF8, yet the LS functions have existed for nearly 10 years. They are certainly different. The LS functions are driven by SetLocale (if the locale argument is not specified) where the older ones (like DateFormat) are not. They have no notion of locales at all. You say, "instead of taking the servers locale / region settings ColdFusion went its own method that didn't work"--what method are you referring to? Just to be clear? Is it that you think that when they considered adding LSDateFormat, they should have instead just made DateFormat work based on selocale? I suppose they could have. You'd need to take it up with Allaire/MM/Adobe engineers to fully understand their motivation. Sure, sometimes it's faulty, but often we find (even in current discussions over things in 8/8.1) that there are debates where a choice seems obvious--until someone points up a compatibility or other issue. Just saying we ought to have a little grace when considering such things, rather than presume people were being stupid. Anyway, I have no investment in this either way. Please don't set me up as a strawman/punching bag. I was just offering another perspective. You're certainly free to disagree, but don't feel that I'm trying to pick a fight with you. I'm really not. Just want to help you (help everyone) get on the same page in the discussion. Finally, I hesitate to ask, but what's your beef with CFHTMLHEAD? If it's been debated before, feel free (someone, anyone) to point to a URL. I use it all the time in a site where the HTML head tags are written previously but later I want to set a specific <title> for a given page. That's the best way (and only way I know) to do that. Or are you complaining about some subtlety of it that doesn't work always? /charlie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
