No I do not think so. You either use one or the other. Of course you
could use Application.cfm in subfolders of your site but I wouldn't
recommend it.
On 04/06/07, Andrew Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why would you want too?
On 6/4/07, Rony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to
I have been using application.cfc for our new site, but the problem
is, trying to merge old code into the new one is proving somewhat
difficult to to the extensive use of application.cfm in certain
folders.
Now these sub folder previously including the application.cfm ( the
main one ) and had a
Matt is well known in CF circles - though I too only recently
discovered he now works for Adobe (lucky bugger).
He is a reputable lad however. And as for the email address - maybe he
is not keen on being spammed on his work account.
--
Peter Tilbrook
ColdGen Internet Solutions
President, ACT
ping
On Jun 1, 12:02 pm, Matt Voerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Guys,
Just a quick note to let you guys know that we at the Adobe Australia
office haven't forgotten about you, and do monitor this (and several
other) lists on a regular basis.
We have a couple of Community related irons in
Hi All
My patchy memory keeps nagging at me not to use isDefined().
Am I off-base or do I remember something about it being best-practice to
avoid isDefined()?
Who's got the low-down?
Grant
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
I think you are correct on this also. I also remember the samples
instance not being active by default. So yes create a new Instance -
and the beauty of that is it could be a CF6.x, 7.x and now 8.x if
required. Of course the resources consumed can be extreme.
On 04/06/07, Haikal Saadh [EMAIL
structkeyexist is generally regarded as best practice
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
cfaussie group.
To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group,
Ok this is the most annoying thread. How about we put a poll or something
up somewhere instead. I don't mind doing it.
-Original Message-
From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of AndyRazz
Sent: Monday, 4 June 2007 4:38 PM
To: cfaussie
Subject: [cfaussie]
cfif not isdefined(var.foo) ?
I use cfif myquery.recordcount Returned at least one record cfelse
Naddah! /cfif
It is a elegant way to test for the existance of something. User with
CFPARAM if you at least require a default of some sort.
On 04/06/07, grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All
My
Grant,
It is going to depend on what best suits you, most people for some reason
will frown at its use. But there is nothing wrong in using it.
On 6/4/07, grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All
My patchy memory keeps nagging at me not to use isDefined().
Am I off-base or do I remember
Use it all the time,
See no reason not to other than where cfparam is more logical.
Ie
cfparam name=form.checkBoxName default=false /
Instead of
cfif NOT isDefined(form.checkBoxName)
cfset form.checkBoxName = false /
/cfif
Regards
Dale Fraser
there are approx 310 sign-ups that haven't pinged yet. Considering the
slow rate at the moment, is there a chance that unpinged number will
improve with the poll?
I can see a funny side to it, though. Perhaps I'm easily amused
On 6/4/07, Steve Onnis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok this is
For those of you who do not know, I have re designed some code I wrote a few
years ago.
This application is asReports, which allows you to run a Crystal Report from
within Coldfusion. This has been tested on CFMX 7.02 Coldfusion 8, but as
now been released to the general public as V0.2 alpha.
ParameterExists() is bad.
In fact forget I even mentioned it :)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
cfaussie group.
To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
structKeyExists runs quicker - but I hesitate to say isDefined is
bad. Personally I'd use what feels best to you. It's not like one
will take 0.002 ms and the other will take 2 hours.
On 6/4/07, grant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All
My patchy memory keeps nagging at me not to use isDefined().
plang from melboune
On 6/4/07, Barry Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there are approx 310 sign-ups that haven't pinged yet. Considering the
slow rate at the moment, is there a chance that unpinged number will
improve with the poll?
I can see a funny side to it, though. Perhaps I'm easily
Ray is right. And the fact you are bothering to check at all is good
coding practice. Never assume.
On 04/06/07, Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
structKeyExists runs quicker - but I hesitate to say isDefined is
bad. Personally I'd use what feels best to you. It's not like one
will
Hi Grant,
The choice is really down to your programming style. I have come from a C /
Pascal / PLSQL / Java background and have learned to be very dogmatic and
methodical with my programming style. As a team leader I insist that all
variables are either declared at the start of a template or to
Actually Ray is wrong so to speak...
It is a known fact and even though in some cases it makes no difference as
the speed differences are very slight, but it is personal preference and
nothing more. As far as best practice goes, I would be more concerned on how
to optimise the server processing
Simon CFC's go without saying, as there will be problems if you do not scope
variables with the var scope anyway. just an FYI to any new developers.
On 6/4/07, Simon Haddon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Grant,
The choice is really down to your programming style. I have come from a C
/ Pascal
I am glad I don't work on one of Andrew Scotts projects.
On 04/06/07, Andrew Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon CFC's go without saying, as there will be problems if you do not scope
variables with the var scope anyway. just an FYI to any new developers.
On 6/4/07, Simon Haddon [EMAIL
Yeah, well you wouldn't I hate the request scope it is evil.
On 6/4/07, Peter Tilbrook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am glad I don't work on one of Andrew Scotts projects.
On 04/06/07, Andrew Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon CFC's go without saying, as there will be problems if you do
isDefined() will sometimes return false positives when dealing with
SESSION-scoped variables. I do not recall which version of CF this
was on, but would have been no earlier than 6.1. Ihave not re-
verified this on subsequent versions. At that point in time I
switched to using
http://corfield.org/blog/index.cfm/do/blog.entry/entry/isDefined_vs_structKeyExists
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
cfaussie group.
To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com
To
I can't agree with the statement goes without saying as too often I have
to say it. I have seen so many bad implementations of CFC that clobber
variables left right and centre that it really annoys me and ,
disappointingly it is allowed in the language.
I have taken over projects that I have
Why do you say that Peter? From emails that I have read I think that Andrew
is quiet a disciplined programmer? What is the problem?
Cheers,
Simon
On 04/06/07, Peter Tilbrook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am glad I don't work on one of Andrew Scotts projects.
On 04/06/07, Andrew Scott [EMAIL
I agree (disciplined) but he then bagged the request scope so now I
am not so sure.
--
Peter Tilbrook
ColdGen Internet Solutions
President, ACT and Region ColdFusion Users Group
PO Box 2247
Queanbeyan, NSW, 2620
AUSTRALIA
http://www.coldgen.com/
http://www.actcfug.com/
Tel: +61-2-6284-2727
Err, how am I wrong? I said there was a speed difference, and you
agreed? Or did you think I meant it was ALWAYS faster? If so - I
misspoke and you are right to correct me.
On 6/4/07, Andrew Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually Ray is wrong so to speak...
It is a known fact and even though
It brings a tear to my eye to see all these numbers - Solidarity
Brothers!
sol·i·dar·i·ty
1. union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and
interests, as between members of a group or between classes, peoples,
etc.: to promote solidarity among union members.
2. community of
I am hoping to get some input on the following.
I have one instance of CF running and one is dormant (STAGING) to upload new
code to and test it out before moving to LIVE.
We are starting out with one machine for CF and will tag on more as the need
arises, my question is, would there be any
Remember that as you add instances, resources available to each
individual cluster drops.
Now, rather than having stage and live on one machine, wouldn't it make
more sense to have two machines?
* One for the live.
* Second one for stage, with maybe an additional instance clustered
Ray,
I said so to speak, I think the discussion on cftalk about how one is faster
on one platform than the other is interesting.
On 6/5/07, Raymond Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Err, how am I wrong? I said there was a speed difference, and you
agreed? Or did you think I meant it was
And Peter you need to know when the micky is being taken out of you.
Sorry it was just that 2 fridays in a row, the request scope had nothing to
do with the problem yet you provided it as an answer:-)
On 6/5/07, Peter Tilbrook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree (disciplined) but he then bagged
Having seen more than my fair share of request scope abuse, I can see
why he would.
I think easy access to request in CF can cause poor code. But then
again, guns don't kill people, people kill people, right?
Peter Tilbrook wrote:
I agree (disciplined) but he then bagged the request scope
Can it also open the report in the Crystal ActiveX viewer?
Does it handle reports with multiple subreports?
I had a (brief) look at it late last night. I will need to check how to pass
the report parameters (for stored procedures) and pass it selection criteria.
We are a huge Crystal 9 site,
Yep, you will end up with 4 services, a jrun manager, a cf manager,
and 2 instances that you can cluster.
the jrun manager service hosts Jrun (duh) and then that runs the
default cf instance. this is the only cf instance that gives you the
cluster manager in administrator. Once you create
Scott,
Yes it handles sub reports, and no it doesn't use ActiveX viewer. I found
that cumbersum, and my boss at the time (Hi Dale) had designed a more
elligant approach.
The main idea is that you can use cfcontent to deliver the report to the
browser one it is created.
However I might look into
We run 2 machines via a load balancer with sticky sessions, then have
3 instances on each machine. the default instance runs testing and
staging sites, and then we have a cluster that runs 2 instances for
the production application.
It runs great. The best advantage is that if one instance gets
Dale,
We use rackspace.com and they are fantastic. not cheap so that would
affect your decision, but they are great.
HTH
Duncan
On 5/31/07, Dale Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
We currently run our own servers in a data centre and we are due this year
to upgrade a lot of
We have loads of problems with the ActiveX viewer most staff are not local
admins and cannot install the viewer when it runs for the first time.
I just prefer it as I can navigate through the groups on the report much easier
as compared to when displayed in .pdf
Andrew Scott [EMAIL
I'm guessing the cf instance can tehn be disabled - untill I need to manage
the cluster again?
On 6/5/07, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, you will end up with 4 services, a jrun manager, a cf manager,
and 2 instances that you can cluster.
the jrun manager service hosts Jrun (duh) and
Yup, it would make more sense to have another machine for the cluster, but
as specified, we don't have that luxury at the moment. And I'm basically
looking for an excuse (where there isn't one yet) to install a cluster on
one machine (I'm like a boy with a new toy).
I prefer my staging on the
I like this. Just the excuse I was looking for, let's wait and see if there
are any major negatives ;-)
On 6/5/07, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We run 2 machines via a load balancer with sticky sessions, then have
3 instances on each machine. the default instance runs testing and
staging
It brings a tear to my eye to see all these numbers - Solidarity
Brothers!
Soli-darity For-ever
Buntel dressed up in tight leather
Ben Forta left standing in the weather
For Cold-Fusion makes us strong
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
Wow thanks for the response people. My question is really out of pure
laziness - I have a huge struct that i need to check a key for - the actual
key path is
session.currentuser.currentreport.filters.currentfilter.filterset, where
filters, currentfilter and filterset may not be present. so it's
Personally, I favour sane defaults rather than having to check for
presence of variables all the time. And the bigger and more complicated
your data structs get, I think having to check to see if a variable
exists is a quick path to insanity.
Side effect of eating too much spaghetti...
grant
Then I'll stick to my original statement that there is nothing wrong with
isDefined it's better than embedded structKeyExists.
Regards
Dale Fraser
http://dalefraser.blogspot.com http://dalefraser.blogspot.com
From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
@Dale: It throws.
@Haikal: Good Point. It's that laziness again - setting up and maintaining
defaults can be rather tiresome.
On 05/06/07, Haikal Saadh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I favour sane defaults rather than having to check for
presence of variables all the time. And the
FAB,
Long time veiwer, first time caller.
On Jun 1, 12:02 pm, Matt Voerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Guys,
Just a quick note to let you guys know that we at the Adobe Australia
office haven't forgotten about you, and do monitor this (and several
other) lists on a regular basis.
We have
wow.. is this thing still going?
Mark
On 6/5/07, dfwise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FAB,
Long time veiwer, first time caller.
On Jun 1, 12:02 pm, Matt Voerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Guys,
Just a quick note to let you guys know that we at the Adobe Australia
office haven't
Mark, yours is the 100th post on this thread but not the 100th person to ping
car-mawwnnn! we can d it!!!
The CFAUSSIE-a-thon is hoping to raise 100 members from the dead.
The total so far at the tally room comes in at 83 members (someone
check this?)
Email now, our inboxes are ready
51 matches
Mail list logo
