The reason I put XFAs in the attribs scope is that I was trying to be
consistent with the whole FormURL2Attributes logic, the argument being that
we should have a unified scope. So now, you're going to have some vars that
are purely local and some that are attributes? These attributes are starting
to feel like an appendix--having had a purpose at one time, but now just
hanging around.
When do I get to see my little um...err...clone/baby?
Hal Helms
Team Allaire
[ See www.halhelms.com <http://www.halhelms.com> for info on training
classes ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Nat Papovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:13 AM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
What do XFBs have to do with the attribs scope? I never put them in the
attribs scope myself, only the local scope (and not as a structure as the
original XFB outline mentions), and I haven't gotten a ticket yet...
NAT
p.s. The creation (birth?) of Mini Hal is coming along nicely.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:54 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
>
>
> John,
>
> Part of the cost is having to prefix everything with "attributes." When
> dealing with XFAs, etc, this gets to be a significant amount of
> time. But I
> agree with you about the search-engine friendly URLs. That's a
> nice feature.
> Score one for FormURL2Attributes.
>
> Hal Helms
> Team Allaire
> [ See www.halhelms.com <http://www.halhelms.com> for info on training
> classes ]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 12:01 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Re: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
>
>
>
> > I agree--that's the only thing that's really nice about having
> it. Again,
> I
> > just wonder if the cost is worth it.
> >
>
>
> somehow I missed the originating comment that must have started this. Has
> someone done a cost analysis to see exactly how much we are really paying
> for the convenience?
>
> (as an aside, if the need for ATTRIBUTES is somewhat moot due to non FB
> custom tag calls, and therefore only FORM and URL are in play,
> then perhaps
> we should need a URL2FORM.cfm or vice-versa tag. I happen to like the
> ability to have search-engine friendly URLs)
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
