Title: Message
taco,
 
not sure why you need to copy the session structure back to the form scope?
 
i usually just do this on the action page:
 
<CFIF NOT IsDefined("Request.Session.online.fieldnames")>
<CFSET Request.Session.></CFIF>
<cfset StructAppend(request.session.online,form)>
 
and continue to use the request structure until the end of the process (insert/update a db or send an email etc.) when i clear it:
 
<CFSET StructClear(request.session.online)>
 
steve
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Taco Fleur
Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2004 4:10 PM
To: CFAussie Mailing List
Subject: [cfaussie] Form scope weirdness or ........

When I have a multi form process I usually store the form structure in the session, i.e.

session.process.form = duplicate(form);

or structAppend when it needs to append the form structure

at the end of the process I do
form = structNew();
form = duplicate(session.process.form); (copying the saved structure back tot he form scope)

I find that sometimes it just does not work (when trying to show this code to someone else for example) its driving me nuts, either what I am doing just is no good and should have never worked for me either, or I am just missing the obvious today.

The problem I am having is that the FORM scope is empty when I dump it after trying to copy the stored structure back to the form scope.

anyone care to comment? Anyone else doing this?

Cheers,
Taco

---
You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia
http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
Register now for the 3rd National Conference on Tourism Futures, being held in Townsville, North Queensland 4-7 August - www.tq.com.au/tfconf
---
You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia
http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004

Reply via email to