Oh yeah! two more things that this tag does that you may not know....
get this:
4) <input type="image" name="Fuseaction_ViewAddress"> It will
automatically parse out that that button is meant to be a fuseaction.
type=image returns wierd variables. play with it.
5) <input type="image" name="Fuseaction_EditAddress76">
<input type="image" name="Fuseaction_EditAddress82">
<input type="image" name="Fuseaction_EditAddress97">
You can attach a numeric value representing a primary key to an image
button. In the example above case I would use it for an #address_id# to
an image button in a form.
Steve Nelson
Steve Nelson wrote:
>
> The Attributes scope solves 3 problems with utter simplicity.
>
> 1) Make form, url, and attributes into a single scope so switching
> between the scopes doesn't change code
> 2) They allow for search engine safe urls without changing code
> 3) They allow for calling an index.cfm as a cfmodule (simple nesting)
>
> I have to be honest here... I'm not convinced of the nested Fuseboxes.
> I've tried it a few times now just to play around with them and I find
> that it adds a huge layer of complexity to the ultra simple concept of
> Fusebox. I still have not heard an argument for what problem nesting
> Fuseboxes actually solves. Sure the concept is cool, but I'm just not
> seeing the need for it.
>
> Can anyone show us a real life example of where nested Fusebox solved
> something that couldn't be done with a simple cfmodule call to an
> index.cfm file? I'd be happy to show a couple real life examples of
> simple cfmodule call to an index.cfm file.
>
> Steve Nelson
> Try my CFML code tester for free!
> http://www.secretagents.com/tools/stomp/
> (804) 825-6093
>
> Hal Helms wrote:
> >
> > 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
