Actually, I've never used this technique before. :) I've been
pondering the idea for a while, but never really explored it
in detail.
I also can't see much use in calling the same tag twice within
a fuseaction, but I'm thinking it could potentially be useful if
you serialized the tag's data and reused it across page hits. For
example, suppose you have a store circuit that calls an cart
circuit through custom tags. The store circuit could cumulatively
add things to the cart circuit, and access them later. Between
hits, the cart would be WDDXed and put it in a database or
something, and you would retrieve it with an ID. (I've also thought
about using that technique on the circuit that's actually being
called.)
Does that make sense?
Patrick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:33 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Re: another nesting problem
>
>
> While the concept sound cool and you've got me intrigued. It seems like
> a decent amount of complexity to save yourself from writing a couple
> attributes.
>
> I personally don't find myself reusing the same tag/fuse (throughout a
> single Fuseaction) enough times that the added complexity would be worth
> it.
>
> Where do you see that fitting into real life?
>
> Steve Nelson
>
> Patrick McElhaney wrote:
> >
> > Encapsulation is just the beginning!
> >
> > You can't extend a custom tag like you can a class. You can't
> > overload methods. You can't have polymorphism. There's a
> > lot more too OO than simply making your applications modular.
> >
> > Also, custom tags are stateless, just like
> > the web. You can't create an instance of a custom
> > tag and do multiple things with the same data. (Well,
> > theoretically you could:
> > http://www.meta-magic.com/cgi-bin/fusewiki?StatefulCustomTag)
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: McCollough, Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 12:13 PM
> > > To: Fusebox
> > > Subject: RE: another nesting problem
> > >
> > >
> > > Yw know, I think I side with Roger B. Basically, what -is- a
> > > custom tag? If
> > > it's not a CFX, it's nothing more than an encapsulated grouping
> > > of standard
> > > CF commands, arranged to do a specific function. If it -is- a
> > > CFX, then it's
> > > an encapsulation of C++/Java commands, arranged to do a
> specific function.
> > > And how you arrange those modules is what makes an app.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Roger B. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 3:03 AM
> > > > To: Fusebox
> > > > Subject: RE: another nesting problem
> > > >
> > > > > Surely you cant think that the custom tag is an end all
> solution for
> > > > code
> > > > > reuse of complex functionality??
> > > >
> > > > Russ,
> > > >
> > > > More or less, yeah... if we're talking about ColdFusion. After all,
> > > > CFObjects, Spectra, and many other CF-based frameworks are just
> > > elaborate
> > > > layers of custom taggery. And of course, Fusebox itself provides a
> > > > wonderfully elegant mechanism for exposing the guts of entire
> > > applications
> > > > to the world via the good ol' custom tag.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Roger
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
