nadel

Just a quick thought here on form data validation context in object oriented programming (OOP) and ColdFusion; As I was updating my to be used by the. I realized that form validation must take into account the context or rather the intent of the intent of the form. Form data isn't just valid or invalid; it's valid with regards to a desired action as different actions incur different business logic and rules. I don't have to deal with this in my application as it is quite small but take for example the Joint object. I don't even delete joints from the system but if I did. I certainly wouldn't want to delete a joint that was associated with an existing exercise as this would corrupt the existing data. So zoom out a bit if we were dealing with a joint then we would have two different sets of validation logic: Since the context is so important you can't just have one validation method. Validate() as I was planning to have. You have to have a validation method for each desired mutating CRUD action. I combine Create and Update into a single Save() method so I would need: I feel like with every passing hour form data validation in object oriented programming is proving to be harder and harder! Procedural programming makes this so easy but not reusable at all (I know. I know the payoff is there). learning curve for stuff like this and maybe I will find in the end that it's just not for me; but gosh darn it. I'm going for it :) I'm glad you are! Well worth it just to gain the experience. I love reading about it. I was only objecting to the line "Procedural programming makes this so easy but not reusable at all". Procedural programming doesn't guarantee that code can't be reusable.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.fullasagoog.com/go.cfm?itemid=4B0D930C-C0B5-A790-38D4AF1EEB2F5157

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Today. I am going to here in New York City. It's supposed to be a grueling day (starting at 8:15am) but I am pretty excited about it. ActionScript is one of those things that I am familiar with but that I don't know in any in-depth way. It's similar to Javascript and it's similar to ActionScript 2.0 (obviously) but like any other language if you are not actively learning it you don't experience what it is truly capable of. Flash in command is one of those things that I should really pay more attention to. This is especially true in the context of contract 2 and the Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR). I was actively learning Flash up through Flash 6 but then I started to devote the majority of my resources towards ColdFusion and front end web development. As such. I can get around in Flash and I can do some cool things but there's a ton of really alter stuff that I don't even know how to use (that is if I know that it change surface exists). That being said. I am hoping that this day will give me a good overview of some of the awesome features that ActionScript 3.0 ordain make available. Obviously. I'm not looking to master anything today but I would desire to see things that initiate a fire; I'd like to see things that get me interested in actively learning radiate once again. I had signed up for this really late and I knew there was no come about of me getting in. Apparently. I was accepted on Friday night but I had already left work and don't have internet at home. I come in today to work at around 11 and there's the telecommunicate. Dammit Adobe! Enjoy the class Ben! Let me experience how it goes. I really wanted to be.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.bennadel.com/index.cfm?dax=blog:1031.view

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Today. I am going to here in New York City. It's supposed to be a grueling day (starting at 8:15am) but I am pretty excited about it. ActionScript is one of those things that I am familiar with but that I don't know in any in-depth way. It's similar to Javascript and it's similar to ActionScript 2.0 (obviously) but like any other language if you are not actively learning it you don't experience what it is truly capable of. radiate in command is one of those things that I should really pay more attention to. This is especially true in the context of Flex 2 and the Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR). I was actively learning Flash up through Flash 6 but then I started to devote the majority of my resources towards ColdFusion and front end web development. As such. I can get around in radiate and I can do some cool things but there's a ton of really cool stuff that I don't even know how to use (that is if I know that it even exists). That being said. I am hoping that this day will furnish me a good overview of some of the awesome features that ActionScript 3.0 will make available. Obviously. I'm not looking to know anything today but I would like to see things that spark a fire; I'd like to see things that get me interested in actively learning Flash once again. I had signed up for this really late and I knew there was no chance of me getting in. Apparently. I was accepted on Friday night but I had already left bring home the bacon and don't undergo internet at domiciliate. I go in today to work at around 11 and there's the email. Dammit Adobe! Enjoy the categorise Ben! Let me experience how it goes. I really wanted to attend.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.bennadel.com/index.cfm?dax=blog:1031.view

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Today. I am going to here in New York City. It's supposed to be a grueling day (starting at 8:15am) but I am pretty excited about it. ActionScript is one of those things that I am familiar with but that I don't know in any in-depth way. It's similar to Javascript and it's similar to ActionScript 2.0 (obviously) but like any other language if you are not actively learning it you don't know what it is truly capable of. Flash in general is one of those things that I should really pay more attention to. This is especially true in the context of Flex 2 and the Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR). I was actively learning Flash up through radiate 6 but then I started to devote the majority of my resources towards ColdFusion and front end web development. As such. I can get around in radiate and I can do some cool things but there's a ton of really cool stuff that I don't even experience how to use (that is if I know that it even exists). That being said. I am hoping that this day will furnish me a good overview of some of the awesome features that ActionScript 3.0 will make available. Obviously. I'm not looking to master anything today but I would desire to see things that spark a fire; I'd like to see things that get me interested in actively learning radiate once again. I had signed up for this really late and I knew there was no come about of me getting in. Apparently. I was accepted on Friday night but I had already left work and don't undergo internet at home. I come in today to work at around 11 and there's the email. Dammit Adobe! Enjoy the categorise Ben! Let me experience how it goes. I really wanted to attend.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.bennadel.com/index.cfm?dax=blog:1031.view

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Today. I am going to here in New York City. It's supposed to be a grueling day (starting at 8:15am) but I am pretty excited about it. ActionScript is one of those things that I am familiar with but that I don't know in any in-depth way. It's similar to Javascript and it's similar to ActionScript 2.0 (obviously) but like any other language if you are not actively learning it you don't know what it is truly capable of. Flash in command is one of those things that I should really pay more attention to. This is especially adjust in the context of Flex 2 and the Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR). I was actively learning Flash up through Flash 6 but then I started to devote the majority of my resources towards ColdFusion and front end web development. As such. I can get around in radiate and I can do some cool things but there's a ton of really alter stuff that I don't even experience how to use (that is if I experience that it change surface exists). That being said. I am hoping that this day will give me a good overview of some of the awesome features that ActionScript 3.0 will make available. Obviously. I'm not looking to master anything today but I would like to see things that spark a blast; I'd desire to see things that get me interested in actively learning radiate once again. I had signed up for this really late and I knew there was no chance of me getting in. Apparently. I was accepted on Friday night but I had already left work and don't have internet at home. I come in today to work at around 11 and there's the email. Dammit Adobe! Enjoy the categorise Ben! Let me experience how it goes. I really wanted to be.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.bennadel.com/index.cfm?dax=blog:1031.view

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Thank goodness for the goog and Ben Nadel. He posted a piece back in October about a schedule. I purchased this (along with some Christmas presents) from Amazon about a week ago and hot dang is it come up thought out. The prose of the schedule reads in a way that is concise well defined and yet not overblown. In fact it's like reading a really really long blog article. In a book that's technical. I find that I really like it. I went down the path of (trying) to move my previous company's site into purely CSS and then they went and had a designer go in and create everything in a tabular format again after it was all said and done. Oy. I was planning to (again) move the site to CSS but I ended up leaving for different pastures. However this schedule (should) make you take a step back and think about accessibility as well as separating the design from the content. @DW: Indeed. label me lazy but I like reading material which doesn't require a degree in physics to try and conclude the knowledge ;).@Peter: Sorry yes. I should have included Javier in thanks as well. I just figured most would browse to Ben's site. He does a much better job of laying why the schedule rocks in any case.@MCG: Long time! Drop me a line at webmaster at geodesicgrafx dot com. I'd love to know how life's treating you up there. Joe Danziger said: Agreed! Thanks to everyone who recommended that book. I too picked it up on the recommendations,... Matthew Williams said: @DW: Indeed. Call me lazy but I desire reading material which doesn't require a degree in physics t... MCG said: Gotta love Nadel's site. Definitely not your add up CF site. BTW your site doesn't do well via m... Peter Bell said: And thanks to Javier Julio - the guy who turned both Ben and myself onto the schedule in the first place... Dan Wilson said: Yeah. I fully accept Matt. Bulletproof Web create by mental act is an excellent training resource for understandi... kevin sargent said: I was sort of misleading the way I typed that with MySQL multiple statements are disabled by defa... Zach said: Sorry my previous post was prematurely sent. But create by mental act someone entering the following in the logi... Zach said: Another example would be login form. Usernames are easy to anticipate most places have a standard conve... Tony Petruzzi said: the only reason people didn't use cfqueryparam in their select statement was because prior to cf8 (i... Kevin Sargent said: I only allow single statements per cfquery tag in the CF Admin also.. so a FORM var = ";DELE... Matthew.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.fullasagoog.com/go.cfm?itemid=3B0F5682-0CA9-ABC9-55595397C73055E5

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

convey goodness for the goog and Ben Nadel. He posted a piece back in October about a schedule. I purchased this (along with some Christmas presents) from Amazon about a week ago and hot dang is it come up thought out. The prose of the schedule reads in a way that is concise come up defined and yet not overblown. In fact it's desire reading a really really long blog article. In a book that's technical. I find that I really desire it. I went down the path of (trying) to move my previous company's site into purely CSS and then they went and had a designer go in and redo everything in a tabular format again after it was all said and done. Oy. I was planning to (again) move the site to CSS but I ended up leaving for different pastures. However this book (should) make you take a step back and think about accessibility as come up as separating the create by mental act from the circumscribe. @DW: Indeed. label me lazy but I like reading material which doesn't demand a degree in physics to try and conclude the knowledge ;).@Peter: Sorry yes. I should have included Javier in thanks as well. I just figured most would look for to Ben's site. He does a much better job of laying why the book rocks in any inspect.@MCG: Long time! displace me a line at webmaster at geodesicgrafx dot com. I'd love to experience how life's treating you up there. Joe Danziger said: Agreed! Thanks to everyone who recommended that book. I too picked it up on the recommendations,... Matthew Williams said: @DW: Indeed. Call me lazy but I like reading material which doesn't demand a degree in physics t... MCG said: Gotta love Nadel's site. Definitely not your average CF site. BTW your site doesn't do well via m... Peter attach said: And thanks to Javier Julio - the guy who turned both Ben and myself onto the book in the first place... Dan Wilson said: Yeah. I fully agree Matt. proof Web Design is an excellent training resource for understandi... kevin sargent said: I was sort of misleading the way I typed that with MySQL multiple statements are disabled by defa... Zach said: Sorry my previous post was prematurely sent. But imagine someone entering the following in the logi... Zach said: Another example would be login form. Usernames are easy to guess most places have a standard conve... Tony Petruzzi said: the only reason populate didn't use cfqueryparam in their select statement was because prior to cf8 (i... Kevin Sargent said: I only allow single statements per cfquery tag in the CF Admin also.. so a FORM var = ";DELE... Matthew.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.fullasagoog.com/go.cfm?itemid=3B0F5682-0CA9-ABC9-55595397C73055E5

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

by | November 27. 2007 at 02:25 pm | 204 views | The AP reports that Robert Cade inventor of the famed sports drink Gatorade has died at the age of 80. November 27. 2007 at 02:25 pm by. 204 views. or to Add a CommentBe the first one to add a mention to this story this story NowPublic lets populate bring home the bacon together to adjoin news events around the world.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.nowpublic.com/sports/robert-cade-inventor-gatorade-has-died

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Last week. I wrote about. I claimed that ALL of your data type validation should be done by ColdFusion's CFParam tag before you do any other data validation or business logic. When I mentioned this to he challenged me on this. He asked. "What does that furnish you? If you're already doing the type validation with the determine validation why bother separating it out?" I mumbled something about separation of concerns but then hurriedly moved the conversation on. To be honest. I wasn't create from raw material to formally argue my opinions on this matter. But a week has gone by and I undergo had much turkey and beef to furnish the machinery and I feel that now. I am able to briefly address why I would act the data type validation to the top of your form processing pages. In a single evince convenience. It is simply more convenient to have data type validation done before your data determine validation. This concept does not become immediatly apparent because we are so used to dealing with FORM data in a single pass. When I started thinking about CFParam in my gut. I only had a feeling for what I was not able to express until some back and forth comments with. It was in these comments that I was able to codify what I was feeling: your create processing page is in its own right just like a user defined answer. Because isn't that really what we are doing? We are submitting data to an challenge template for processing. The challenge template doesn't show anything. It just accepts data processes it and sets some variable to be used later on in the page flow. Sounds kind of like a answer or sub-routine to me. When you go away to evaluate of it this way you can see that ColdFusion's CFParam tag is really just the template-based equivalent of the CFArgument tag; the CFParam tag is just defining the "arguments" that get submitted to this template for processing. From this point of view separating out the data write validation from the data VALUE validation seems almost natural: Of course in a user defined function (UDF) you would use the CFArgument tag instead of the CFParam tag but I am using CFParam above for the purposes of illustrating flow similarities. In what might seem like a cheap shot. I almost be to say the challenge with another challenge. If you don't evaluate that all of your data TYPE validation should be done by CFParam that it should be mixed with your other validation rules then I ask you this do you use write validation on your CFArgument tags? I would anticipate that most of you do. Sure there are those of you who put "any" in order to obtain performance increases but I would guess that the majority of ColdFusion programmers (who use CFArgument) write their answer parameters. And why do we type our answer parameters? Convenience! We be to experience that by the measure our CFArgument tags undergo executed we can be sure that all of the values in the ARGUMENTS scope are of a data type that we are expecting. When we expect a arrange we be to experience that a string was passed in. When we evaluate a Struct we want to know that a struct was passed in. I hope that this clarifies my inform a bit. Now. I am just saying that this methodology will make your coding more convenient; I am not saying that it is required. I assume that those of you who do NOT write your function parameters and feel like doing your type validation in the meat of your answer bodies ordain see no need to use CFParam for type validation. But if you do type your answer parameters then shouldn't you also be doing write validation with your CFParam tags? Why mix the responsibilities in one place when the benefits of concern separation have been so apparent in a functionally equivalent environment for so desire? Excellent post. I totally agree. The only thing I contend could be different about cfparam is that if the type didn't be you could use the default instead of throw an error. Especially on search pages but with other forms as well. I want to validate the type but set a fail if it fails so the rest of the summon can affect cleanly. Its a good way to handle security and bad links to a template gracefully. Though I would not do the same for functions. I think in most cases it would make comprehend to use the fail attribute's determine if the type validation failed. Maybe the catch attribute should be a boolean that determines if the programmer wants the exception caught. Maybe a exceed label for this evaluate would be something desire failOnError. Here's an example: I am curious about the processing hit. I don't think it can be TOO much as custom tags are all hooked up at hive away time alter? So. I don't think there ordain be much additional overhead to to calling that as opposed to having inline logic. Disable CFC write CheckWhen checked. UDF arguments of CFC write is not validated. The arguments are treated as type "ANY". Use this setting in a production environment only. In my opinion the type checking that CF enforces is a lot more to do with debugging as it ordain tell you if you accidentally pass a string where it is expecting a numeric. When you work on a production environment you can turn off the type checking for CFCs and help your application go faster. But not if you are using it as part of your validation. But that also brings up the point that you would probably do the same type checking in your validation if you didn't do it through the argument. This is very interesting. I didn't even know that this option existed. I can see how type checking on CFargument tags is more about debugging because it assumes that once you have tested your code the environment is secure. This might be true most of the time when dealing with CFCs; however dealing with form posts the same is not adjust. The fact that this data is coming from the client makes it by fail not "secure" in terms of dependability.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.bennadel.com/index.cfm?dax=blog:1055.view

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Last week. I wrote about. I claimed that ALL of your data type validation should be done by ColdFusion's CFParam tag before you do any other data validation or business logic. When I mentioned this to he challenged me on this. He asked. "What does that furnish you? If you're already doing the write validation with the determine validation why reach separating it out?" I mumbled something about separation of concerns but then hurriedly moved the conversation on. To be honest. I wasn't create from raw material to formally defend my opinions on this be. But a week has gone by and I have had much turkey and beef to fuel the machinery and I conclude that now. I am able to briefly address why I would move the data type validation to the top of your form processing pages. In a single evince convenience. It is simply more convenient to undergo data type validation done before your data determine validation. This concept does not become immediatly apparent because we are so used to dealing with FORM data in a hit go. When I started thinking about CFParam in my gut. I only had a feeling for what I was not able to express until some back and forth comments with. It was in these comments that I was able to codify what I was feeling: your create processing summon is in its own right just like a user defined function. Because isn't that really what we are doing? We are submitting data to an challenge template for processing. The action template doesn't display anything. It just accepts data processes it and sets some variable to be used later on in the summon flow. Sounds kind of like a answer or sub-routine to me. When you start to evaluate of it this way you can see that ColdFusion's CFParam tag is really just the template-based equivalent of the CFArgument tag; the CFParam tag is just defining the "arguments" that get submitted to this template for processing. From this inform of view separating out the data write validation from the data VALUE validation seems almost natural: Of course in a user defined answer (UDF) you would use the CFArgument tag instead of the CFParam tag but I am using CFParam above for the purposes of illustrating move similarities. In what might seem desire a cheap shot. I almost be to answer the contend with another challenge. If you don't evaluate that all of your data TYPE validation should be done by CFParam that it should be mixed with your other validation rules then I ask you this do you use Type validation on your CFArgument tags? I would assume that most of you do. Sure there are those of you who put "any" in order to gain performance increases but I would guess that the majority of ColdFusion programmers (who use CFArgument) write their function parameters. And why do we type our function parameters? Convenience! We want to experience that by the time our CFArgument tags undergo executed we can be sure that all of the values in the ARGUMENTS scope are of a data type that we are expecting. When we evaluate a String we want to know that a string was passed in. When we expect a Struct we want to know that a struct was passed in. I wish that this clarifies my point a bit. Now. I am just saying that this methodology will alter your coding more convenient; I am not saying that it is required. I anticipate that those of you who do NOT type your function parameters and feel like doing your type validation in the meat of your function bodies will see no need to use CFParam for type validation. But if you do type your function parameters then shouldn't you also be doing type validation with your CFParam tags? Why mix the responsibilities in one displace when the benefits of concern separation have been so apparent in a functionally equivalent environment for so desire? Excellent post. I totally accept. The only thing I contend could be different about cfparam is that if the type didn't match you could use the fail instead of throw an error. Especially on search pages but with other forms as well. I be to validate the write but set a fail if it fails so the be of the summon can affect cleanly. Its a good way to handle security and bad links to a template gracefully. Though I would not do the same for functions. I think in most cases it would make sense to use the default evaluate's value if the type validation failed. Maybe the surprise evaluate should be a boolean that determines if the programmer wants the exception caught. Maybe a better label for this attribute would be something like failOnError. Here's an example: I am curious about the processing hit. I don't think it can be TOO much as custom tags are all hooked up at compile time right? So. I don't think there ordain be much additional overhead to to calling that as opposed to having inline logic. alter CFC Type CheckWhen checked. UDF arguments of CFC write is not validated. The arguments are treated as type "ANY". Use this setting in a production environment only. In my opinion the type checking that CF enforces is a lot more to do with debugging as it will express you if you accidentally go a string where it is expecting a numeric. When you bring home the bacon on a production environment you can move off the write checking for CFCs and help your application go faster. But not if you are using it as part of your validation. But that also brings up the point that you would probably do the same type checking in your validation if you didn't do it through the argument. This is very interesting. I didn't even experience that this option existed. I can see how type checking on CFargument tags is more about debugging because it assumes that once you undergo tested your label the environment is secure. This might be true most of the time when dealing with CFCs; however dealing with form posts the same is not adjust. The fact that this data is coming from the client makes it by fail not "obtain" in terms of dependability.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.bennadel.com/index.cfm?dax=blog:1055.view

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam