On 8 Oct 00, at 17:19, Kevin Bridges wrote:
> Can someone expand on why this would be a bad idea? I converted the
> formurl2attributes to formurl2request some time ago and have found it works
> wonderfully ... it simplified things even further in coding. I run on a
It's very easy to overlook the "badness" of the idea when you're coding your
own applications. Because you have the overall view of the application, you're
more likely to keep you variables marching in formation, so to speak.
If, however, your development expands to include other coders, you'll begin to
see where Nat's vehement objections come in. The attribute scope allows you to
use variables within a template, without worrying about either how the value
was passed in, or what variables are named outside (either above or parallel
to) the template's scope.
As an example, if I call a template that returns a value to a variable name I
specify as an attribute in the call, I don't care what variable names are used
within the template I called. In fact, I don't care at all what's in the
called template, as long as I can rely on it to return the result I expect.
Similarly, whoever coded the called template doesn't care what I name my
variables. If we start using the request scope, we MUST know whether our
variable names will conflict with one another. This is why, from the point of
view of dev management, request scope is not a good replacement for attribute
scope.
Now that I've made it clear as mud...<g>
- Jeff
==============================================================
| Jeffrey S. Peters | "Specialization is for insects." |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Lazarus Long |
==============================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/fusebox or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
