We were going to get into several <cfobject> calls for COM objects in our
Intranet. The new Intranet development was going to serve as a "test bed"
for things we wanted to use in the next version of the web application. Nat
is right about setting up parameters for the <cfobject> call.
If there is any setup before the call or cleanup after the call, I don't see
a problem with putting it in a separate file. It makes things cleaner and
easier to maintain (read and document (w/cfdocs of course)). So in the case
of many parameters or cleanup after the call, "encapsulating the
encapsulation" is an entirely necessary step.
--
Jeffrey B. Marsh
Amateurs built the Ark.
Professionals built the Titanic.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nat Papovich
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 4:42 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: <cfobject> in the index.cfm
No, not at all really, but I was on the lookout. Gotta think of the cfobject
call in the exact same light as a cfstoredproc call, which I always put in a
separate file.
If you have 25 input params (normal for a sproc) in a cfobject call, that
makes your index really butt ugly.
Nat Papovich
ICQ 32676414
"I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
-Malcolm X, 1965
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 12:00 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: Re: <cfobject> in the index.cfm
That's an interesting point. were you using COM objects much at
geoagents?
Steve
Nat Papovich wrote:
>
> Yah. Is good.
>
> The only problemo comes with cfparaming input vars. I suppose that can
just
> happen in the index just above the cfobject call, but it might get messy.
> Do as ye please.
>
> Nat Papovich
> ICQ 32676414
> "I'm for truth no matter who tells it."
> -Malcolm X, 1965
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 7:01 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: <cfobject> in the index.cfm
>
> There is a thread on cf-talk about Fusebox. Dave Watts a long time
> 'disbeliever' in fusebox brought up a good point...
>
> He uses a lot of <cfobject> calls and doesn't see the point in having a
> file with a single line on it for calling the <cfobject> tag. Because
> that's "encapsulating the encapsulation". The more i thought about it,
> the more I realize he's totally right. I think we should add to the
> fusebox specs: make <cfobject> calls directly from the <cfcase>
> statements in the index.cfm files.
>
> The reason is that <cfobject> calls are essentially like a <cfmodule> or
> <cfinclude> or a <cf_sometag> call in that the <cfobject> itself
> contains the business logic.
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> If we do this should there be a naming convention for classes in
> <cfobject>?
>
> Steve
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 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.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
