---Reply to mail from Russell Jones about <cf_returnfuseaction> and controlling
processes / duplicate returns
---
> Whoa, I'm impressed. I thought for sure that my post was too
> involved/astract to get a real response on. Not a lot of people even seem
> to be using <cf_returnfuseaction>. Thanks.
Yeah, I think because it introduces these problems people steer clear of
it, but I really find it too useful to ignore and build in this
functionality (and easy ways to use it) into all my sites. I also wrote a
`page state saver' which saves the exact start state (i.e the attributes
structure) of a single request into an array which can be used to provide
a URL to `come back' to the request - I use this as my return fuse action
(RFA) - ie
<CFIF Not LoggedIn>
<CFLOCATION
URL="#CGI.SCRIPT_NAME#?FuseAction=login&RFA=#URLEncodedFormat(REQUEST.Back)#&RFAKey=#CreateUUID()#">
</CFIF>
so that when the user has logged in it comes flying straight back to this
same page on the return.
> Do the experts just not know that this is a problem, or does it happen so
> rarely that it need be no big concern? It sounds like this "RFA.timeout"
> functionality should be built into the <cf_returnfuseaction> tag. I'm almost
> afraid to use it while I know that this error could occur. Could you tell me
> how often such duplicate "returns" have occurred for you both before and
> after your patch code?
Difficult to say this bigest site I have done with return fuse actions to
date (not public yet, but it is a very `process heavy' site dealing with
domain name registrations, online hosting purchase etc)) was initially
written without my patches, and when I found duplicate return fuse actions
causing a large number of problems (it would only take a page reload to
screw things up) I implemented my changes and the problems disappeared
basically. I find it much more reliable - the keying of RFA's does this
alone, but the timeout helps a little as well.
> I understand your general solution, but I am having trouble building in a
> similar feature. Would you be willing to forward the code you have
> checking/settin/dealing with this "ATTRIBUTES.RFAKey".
I would be quite happy to do so yes, and for anybody else interested. All
my code is at work and I won't be back there util Monday (it's Friday
here now :-)), so if interested parties drop me a line there (address in
sig) I'll send the relevant bits to you.
> I think it would be very valuable for the Fusebox community to get talking
> about this tag more. It appears to be so useful now that I understand it.
I agree 100% :-)
> Perhaps if more of the fusebox tags that we download were commented, many of
> these problems would get resolved early on.
I agree 200% :-))
> Thanks again James for such a helpful response!
You're welcome.
---End reply
---
James Sleeman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
