When I'm finished taking over the world, I'll post this tag. Until then, be
fearful!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sneid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:08 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Cf_BodyContent and other functionalities!!
>
>
> Well Nat,
>
> That's pretty impressive.. would you mind posting your example
> somewhere for
> us to have a deeper look...
>
> Thanks guys for your ideas,
> Sneid
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nat Papovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:14 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Cf_BodyContent and other functionalities!!
>
>
> Give me one million dollars or I'll shoot you with my "laser"!
>
> Anyway...
>
> About your idea, Ken - I tried to make that idea work, but couldn't figure
> it out. There is no GOTO processing in CF (lousy no-good language anyway -
> I'm converting to VB and windows script host). If there WAS a
> GOTO, we could
> just GOTO cf_bodycontent's thistag.executionmode="end".
>
> The best I could come up with was to cflocation to the index with
> fa=secureCheckfailed, and let that fa handle it. Wait though, here's an
> idea. Maybe cflocation
> url=index.cfm?fa=bodycontentsecurecheck1234567890&failMessage=blah (some
> never-to-be-duplicated fuseaction) and then let the cfdefaultcase
> handle it
> (which everyone has, right?) by outputting the failMessage
> variable that you
> passed on that cflocation from within secureCheck. Hmmmm....
>
> NAT
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Mone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 5:01 PM
> > To: Fusebox
> > Subject: RE: Cf_BodyContent and other functionalities!!
> >
> >
> > you...thug.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nat Papovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 2:22 PM
> > To: Fusebox
> > Subject: RE: Cf_BodyContent and other functionalities!!
> >
> >
> > I want one million dollars!
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Mone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:53 AM
> > > To: Fusebox
> > > Subject: RE: Cf_BodyContent and other functionalities!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Great idea Nat, can I take a look at that tag?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nat Papovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:18 AM
> > > To: Fusebox
> > > Subject: RE: Cf_BodyContent and other functionalities!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's another nice feature of cf_bodycontent, highly adaptable
> > > to your own
> > > needs:
> > >
> > > While creating the need for a comprehensive security mechanism
> > > for my latest
> > > fusebox effort (no, I'm not using Steve's (ahem) wonderful app_secure
> > > model), I created a custom tag called <cf_secureCheck>. This
> tag can be
> > > wrapped in anything you want secured like this:
> > > <cf_secureCheck ...>
> > > <a href="link to admin">
> > > </cf_secureCheck>
> > >
> > > But if you skip the closing </cf_secureCheck>, this fine tag
> > can also just
> > > get chucked into the top of a fuseaction, or a fuse or anywhere
> > > in the site,
> > > and any request that finds one of these tags requires the
> secureCheck to
> > > validate.
> > >
> > > cf_secureCheck takes a few variables like roleID, groupID,
> > > objectID - stuff
> > > like that. The actual validation isn't the cool part. It just does
> > > validation based on who has what permissions to do what. The
> > neat part is
> > > that it works in conjunction with cf_bodycontent by setting
> > > request.bodycontent to a validation error message if the validation
> > > requested by cf_secureCheck failed. Inside cf_secureCheck, if the
> > > validation
> > > fails, I set the global-ish request scope variable
> > > request.bodycontent to be
> > > an error message and in a *slightly* modified (changed a cfset to
> > > a cfparam)
> > > cf_bodycontent, it outputs the contents.
> > >
> > > Since we're using cf_bodycontent already, all the developers
> > have to do is
> > > call this handy secureCheck tag for any validation they
> require. If they
> > > don't include a closing </cf_secureCheck> tag, then the headers
> > > and footers
> > > still stay the same, _but_ the body on the page is not
> > displayed (because
> > > the fuseaction requested is not available to the given user).
> > >
> > > Don't be afraid to take a look inside bodycontent. Using open
> and close
> > > custom tags is really powerful. On the same note, look inside
> > > formUUL2attributes. There are a few neat things inside it, and
> > > you can even
> > > modify it to copy application scope vars to request scope, which
> > > eliminates
> > > the need to call the application scope for reads!
> > >
> > > NAT
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Adam Phillip Churvis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 11:57 PM
> > > > To: Fusebox
> > > > Subject: Re: Cf_BodyContent and other functionalities!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I've been using Cf_bodyContent for a little while but my
> > question is:
> > > > >
> > > > > What are the other functionalities of this tag apart from the
> > > > fact that it
> > > > > enables us to insert a header and a footer?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been missing a great deal of things...what are the other
> > > > possiblities
> > > > > that exist????
> > > >
> > > > You can easily define context-dependent sections for a website.
> > > <snipped>
> > >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
