Mine was a form field.
I'm really asking if we ought to consider a spcial reserved structure name in the REQUEST scope rather than machinery to pass this through the custom tag into the object invocation.
For example, if you had REQUEST.container.ruleparams (for want of a better scope), you could easily say:
<cfset REQUEST.container.ruleparams=FORM>
Just interested in hearing arguments for and against.
-- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:04:01 +1100, Geoff Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:What arguments are folks putting forward for passing params to the container rule objects through the container tag rather than simply picking up content out of the request scope?
-- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/
--- You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
