CFCs are pretty heavy-weight for simply display logic, so while it is possible and there is nothing wrong with using a CFC wherever you would use a custom tag there will be performance implications that shouldn't be taken lightly.

-Matt

On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 05:27 PM, Brad Howerter wrote:

I say "Custom tags aren't needed anymore now that we have CFCs".

-----Original Message-----
From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 3:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Display in CFCs


I agree, however, the main point of my original question is:


Should custom tags "see" all scopes, or should they be passed in thru
the attributes?
Should custom tags be treated the same as CFCs as far as encapsulation
goes?

I'm just looking for other's experiences with this.

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Neff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 4:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] Display in CFCs



I don't think there's anything wrong with doing display in a CFC as long
as that's the whole point of the CFC. Don't mix up database and
business logic code with display code. As long as you stick to that,
where you put your display code (a custom tag or a cfc) makes no
difference.


Sam


---------------------------------------------- Blog: http://www.rewindlife.com Chart: http://www.blinex.com/products/charting ----------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Howerter
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 5:06 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [CFCDev] Display in CFCs

I'd like to have a religious war on whether to use CFCs or
Custom Tags for
display.  I tried to start one on CF-Talk a few weeks ago,
but it didn't get
much of a response.  I've never seen this fleshed out very
well anywhere.

What are the reasons for NOT having methods that return HTML
strings as a
result?  All I ever read is "It's stupid" or "It's bad".  To
me it makes
sense to do it in a CFC as opposed to a tag, because then you
have self
documenting methods (instead of poorly documented tags).  And
I don't see a
downside to it.  If I have, say, a person object, why
shouldn't it know how
to display itself?  It's probably not as clean a solution as
having xml and
xslt, but to me it seems better than having a custom tag
displaying the
html.


----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
in the message of the email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
in the message of the email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
in the message of the email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901


----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email.


CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to