I tend to treat the XFA's in the same way Steve and Hal and everyone has
told me to treat fusebox itself - I use it as I see fit. I actually have a
great many occasions in my own site to use XFA's with custom tags. When
that happens, I just make them request.XFA.whatever instead of
attributes.XFA.whatever.
Toby Tremayne
Code Poet and Zen Master of the Heavy Sleep
Show Ads Interactive
359 Plummer St
Port Melbourne
VIC 3207
P +61 3 9245 1247
F +61 3 9646 9814
ICQ UIN 13107913
-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Shaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2001 3:02 AM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
I do not use the attributes scope for my XFA's either.
Seems to me the difference is that, I will never use
the XFA's outside of the app itself. I have never had
to pass an XFA through a custom tag or module call.
Therefore, I keep them in the local scope.
Does that make sense or am I missing something?
Nate
--- Hal Helms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
