Oh yeah? Yeah? You and what army, pal?
Steve asks why the flap over attributes. From my POV, it's that the whole
thing was so wrong-headed to begin with. It solved a problem that didn't
exist! It was based on a misperception that form and URL vars weren't
available to custom tags. And didn't even solve it correctly, as it never
really made it an attributes scoped variable.
So, the only argument for it is that we want a single-scoped variable. But
do we only want it for form and URL variables? Why stop there? In other
words, I don't see the rationale behind it. I think that we look at the
ancillary benefits (putting unrelated code in the tag that parses search
engine friendly URLs), but that has nothing to do with creating new
variables with an "attributes." as part of their name.
And of course, there IS a cost associated with it. It does add to processing
time; it does take up server RAM; and it does cause everyone to write
"attributes." when they aren't strictly needed. Honestly, it bothers my
sense of clean, elegant code. And my experience has taught me that beauty
pays off in many ways, many of which can't be immediately predicted.
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 11:52 AM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
Well the stinking tag is called FORMURL2attributes, not ALLVARS2attributes.
So I like the flexibility of having my form and url vars in attribs, but
don't really care about my xfa vars. Using your rationale, it would seem
that every var you ever use would be attributes, which I know is not right.
I just make a decision to only scope certain things certain ways.
NAT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 5:29 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
>
>
> 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
