I used to do the cflocate on errors but when i compared it to actually including the necessary files for each option in the fuse I found it seemed to the end user to be a lot faster, however it meant i would be including 2 fuses in 1 anyone see a problem with this? I think its better this way plus of course you have all the form fields if theres an error.
Kola > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: 02 April 2002 16:12 > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: server side form validation?? > > > > > >Jeremy, > > > >Nice to see that you're now a "boxer" :-) > > > >I am in the process of rebuilding my consulting website > >(www.architechx.com - sneak peek at beta.architechx.com) and had to deal > >with the same situation. I used a separate fuse, but rather than > >cflocate, I called the "validation" fuse as a custom tag - based on > >validation results, I cfincluded different sets of files (to keep it > >black boxed, my validation fuse only returned a Boolean) > > > >--- > >Billy Cravens > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Jeremy Ridout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 4:35 PM > >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > >Subject: server side form validation?? > > > >I'm writing my very first FB3 app, a shopping cart, and I'm working on > >the > >checkout forms. There are 4 stages that our customers must go through in > >order to checkout. Each of these phases, a customer must make several > >form > >inputs. > > > >My question is, what does the FB3 spec say about performing server side > >validation? > > > >I first thought about a separate fuse for validation and depending on > >the > >pass/fail result from the validator template, I would cflocate to the > >appropriate XFA. I quickly remembered why I don't like to cflocate for > >anything--I lost my form inputs no matter which direction I needed to > >go. > > > >The only obvious solution that I can see is a separate cfif at resides > >above > >the circuit switch (still within fbx_switch) that first looks to see if > >it > >should attempt to validate, and if so, depending on the result, modify > >the > >fuseaction to direct to request to the appropriate fuse... no cflocation > >necessary. > > > >It works very will and is only 3 lines of code. But, it sure doesn't > >feel > >like this solution is in the spirit of FuseBox. > > > >BTW, sorry if this topic has been beaten to death in the past, I tried > >to > >search the topica archives but it wasn't very useful. > > > >Thanks in advance, > >Jeremy > > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
