The syntax of FORM["blah.blah.blah"] would create something
hierarchically that lookslike this......
FORM
blah.blah.blah
I think someone said that in previous versions of CF it would
literally create the hierarchy - as in......
FORM
blah
blah
blah
When you start using "blah.blah.blah" the biggest confusion you can
get into is that in CFMX 6.1 it WONT create the hierarchy (it is just
a literal key).
In the case of the FORM scope (being created as the result of a FORM
submission) you are not likely to ever create a hierarchy of
structures. But in something like Session or Application scope you
would/could.
Does that make sense ?
Regards,
Gary
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:19:13 +1000, Taco Fleur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >From a CFMX perspective, I would warn off it - only because the DOT
> > notation is used in STRUCTs to create the hierachy.
>
> Well I am a bit hesitant about it, but I need to define the object path and
> property in a field name, I could do
> inpPerson_Employee_positionTitle, but then I'd have to do a replace on the _
> and I like seeing it with the dots ;-)
>
> Reason for doing this is because I have a cfc that looks at what objects are
> used and retrieves the appropriate xml to validate the data, i.e.
> inpPerson.Employee.positionTitle will become this.meta[ Person.Employee ]
> and the attribute name is "positionTitle"
>
> Now, if I can't use the dot notation I can still do this, but then it just
> became a bit messier...
> So are we sure this going to cause problems? ;-))
>
> Gary, I could not visualize the issues you were pointing out, can you show
> me a sample?
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
>
---
You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
