[thelist] CF: Attributes to Locals?

[.jeff]

joshua,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Joshua Olson
>
> The reason they use the name at all is so that when
> applications are ultimately ported into custom tags
> you don't have to change anything.  So, it is
> understandable why the methodology uses it, IMHO.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

yes, the methodology does encourage moving applications over to custom tags
eventually.  the keyword is eventually.  of the mass of people i know using
the fusebox methodology, very few have done this.  this is most likely
because converting an application to a custom tag is a very daunting task
with little to no benefits to justify the time to do it.

so while the forethought to use the attributes scope is noble, the frequency
with which this forethought actually plays a part in development efficiency
is pathetic.  at the very least, the preachers of the fusebox methodology
would do their followers a favor and explain that the attributes scope is
not a valid scope outside of custom tags and how to apply a pseudo-fix in
those instances.

in my opinion, they're not willing to do that, nor do they care.  if they
did, they wouldn't have one of their core tags, cf_formurl2attributes,
writing name/value pairs to the calling template with all variable names
prefaced with 'attributes.' since the calling template would almost never be
a custom tag itself.

just my 2¢,

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/