It would need to cater for pages with multiple containers and they may or may not share parameters.
When I pass a parameter in, I may need to pass it in with a different argument name. When I was looking into this I was also reading up on decouple objects. I guess in the scope of a farCry application, this may not be an issue?? On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:02:46 +1100, Geoff Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Mercer wrote: > > 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/ > --- 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/
