Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The way I described,
you would still need to have a primary key, and you would
still need to store the WDDX packet somewhere
(i.e. a database) between hits.
I guess the real value is this: For those who insist on
creating classes in CFML, this is a very simple and
clean way to make a regular old fusebox app behave like
a class, but still remain a regular old fusebox app.
Patrick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 10:18 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Re: another nesting problem
>
>
> Sure that makes a little more sense than with a single page hit. It
> might make sense in a wizard where pages are related to each other in
> some fashion.
>
> ....Although I'm working on a wizard based application that currently has
> about 90-100 Fuseactions in it, and now that I think about it I don't
> see a need for this. I much prefer to pass primary keys in the URL/form
> or in client variables when i don't want the user touching them. Then I
> pull the data from the db as I need it. That seems like a much simpler
> and less problematic approach to me.
>
> Steve
>
> Patrick McElhaney wrote:
> >
> > 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
