What are some common use cases for implementing CFML Custom Tag (not CFX tag)? In 3 yrs of my CF exp I've never written one. Would someone please enlighten me, under which use case / situation would one choose custom tag over cfc / udf?
Remember that custom tags were, at one time, the only method available to extend CFML (up until version 4) - UDFs came later (CF 5) and CFCs later still (CF MX). They're not as commonly used as they once were for the simple reason that there are more options.
Custom tags are basically procedural in nature in a language that, with CFCs, become more and more OO in practice. This is another reason that they're not very common.
But there's still cases where they come in handy (but are never required) - mostly for interface work. The ability to create both a start and end state can definately come in handy. A simple example could be a "wrapper" for page content the opening tag might add the HTML header and page navigation while the closing tag would add the footer and end the page.
In this way your page content could be nothing more than:
<cfmodule... >
Page Content!
</cfmodule>
Of course there are other ways to do this as well - but sometimes the classics still have value. ;^)
Look at the CFUniform project for a great example of custom tag usage. Custom Tags are great when building reusable pieces for the UI portion of an application.
I think that, for the most part, custom tags have mostly fallen by the wayside since UDFs, CFCs, and integration with Java (and to a lesser degree .NET) allowed easier and more straightforward ways to do similar things.
Looking back to when I started in CF5, I can think of several examples. A good one might be CFX)Zip, which allowed interaction with Zip files before that was available directly through CF.
The only use I can think of offhand in a more modern context would be to provide precompiled code that wasn't written in Java or .NET, such as proprietary doodads written in C. That's a pretty niche use, though.
Honestly, I imagine at this point they exist more or backwards comatibility than anything else.
Ever since CFCs came out I've stopped using custom tags simply because of the overhead. They take too long to initiate and execute. But like #Jim Davis said, they may be useful where you need to write a tag that wraps around other content.
But in a well defined solution, you can do way with them all together.
Related
I am trying figure out which one (Pedestal, Hoplon, Bidi) should i use? I didn't find any good article in the Internet which help me with this choice.
From https://github.com/juxt/bidi i can read Pedestal is isomorphic, but Bidi is also cljs. What is it mean? What is the difference?
I found compojure is too simply. I can't even generate URLs in HTML templates. I started looking something else. I found also route-one (library to generate URLs working with compojure), but i guess soon i will discover i need something more then compojure have again.
My intuition say me to choose between: Pedestal, Hoplon and Bidi.
What i need:
I want have independent business model architecture like
http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2012/08/13/the-clean-architecture.html
http://blog.find-method.de/index.php?/archives/209-Dependency-inversion-in-Clojure.html
I don't want depend this part of code with any framework. Less dependency is better.
On next stage i want inject this model business into something like bridge, which will be the connector with user interface. It can be time for framework or additional libraries.
And at least i want create frontend user interface as website. It will be dynamic content with ClojureScript or mayby static. I don't know. I have to thing about both.
What i found out in Clojure i really like conception of building my own set of libraries based on my preferences. But i don't want write my own code to use things like generate URLs for routes. So mayby i should also consider route-one?
Please write something clever what help me choose one or complicate my live with some other option to choose :)
https://github.com/juxt/bidi
https://github.com/pedestal/pedestal
https://github.com/tailrecursion/hoplon
https://github.com/clojurewerkz/route-one
This is an ancient question, and I don't pretend to have an answer (much less "the" answer). But I'm googling for some of the same basic pieces tonight, and my search results came back with this response.
So I figured I'd jot down notes about my [very] limited understanding here.
Bidi seems awesome. From what I've seen, juxt produces very high quality software. For places where I need REST-style interface routing (which includes sending related routes back), this is my current GOTO choice.
Pedestal - also awesome. But it seems to be a very different use case. Routing
is a very small subset here (and they've tried multiple approaches to come up with a really good set of options). This seems to be more of a fairly low-level full-featured server-side library for integrating the code you care about with the underlying server pieces that you don't.
To be honest, I'm not sure Pedestal's routing libraries really support the reverse endpoints you have to have for REST. I think they almost definitely do, but I'm not positive. My use cases have all been about their interceptor chaining abstraction, which is mind-blowingly awesome.
Hoplon - I haven't looked at this in 2-3 years. At the time, it seemed like a big, bold, high-level kitchen-sink framework that's somewhere in the same ballpark as Ruby On Rails (although I think there are also front-end components). I've been writing API end-points, and this didn't seem like a good fit at the time. It deserves more attention than I gave it.
route-one - I hadn't heard about it before this question. I've gotten good impressions from everything that I have used from clojurewerkz, but that usage has been very light.
I am currently developing a website. I would like to separate content and presentation. I am currently using a Dreamweaver Template to achieve this. However, I find that Dreamweaver's edit regions are very limiting in the design view. I have found that the same goal can be achieved by including the header and footer of my website.
What are the pros and cons of using includes rather than using templates?
First, if I were to rephrase your question, it's more like asking "Should I by a wire frame of a kite or by the glue to stick together what I'm making?" And then, you ask about the pros and cons of buying the wireframe against buying the glue. There are far too many variables as you can see...
And back on your your question... At some point your template will use include files. And for a start, it's worth knowing what you're thinking... Let's look at some basics.
Web design - usually refers to making websites that aren't really interactive. They don't have server-side elements. So most of the site has 'static' contents. If this were the case, you're better off with DreamWeaver, particularly if you're not into html/css editing.
Web development/programming - starts off with something as elementary as mailing a form, to highly interactive sites like FaceBook. Here you'll need to use some server-side language, usually like PHP, ASP or JSP. The choices are many but you've got to choose your own platform or combination of them.
Now to the second option (above). If for example, you were building a site using PHP, one of the nice things you'll do is to include your header, footer and side panels that need to be repeated across all pages. This way, you'll eliminate the need to re-write those sections. But if you were using a program like DreamWeaver, it does this duplication for you. Yes, it physically copy-pastes those sections into every file that needs it. Of course the end result may not be any different. But as a developer, you will be tied down to the DreamWeaver platform or for that matter, any other specific platform.
On the other hand, if you get used to working with an editor like NotePad++ or GEdit, you may switch between editors at any time. But you have the task of hand-coding everything from scratch. But then again, since you would use include files to bring in your headers and stuff, you save development time as well.
I don't know how much of html/css or php you know, but here's one of my demos to show you how to hand-code a site. This ain't complete but you should get an idea.
Link to the video introduction
Link to the video on youtube
Is there any web page template and resources?
I am not good at image creating,page structure designing ...
You mean just for layout and styling? A long time ago I used to use TemplatesBox, which worked pretty well for me at the time. I would consider their free stuff to be a bit dated at this point, but it may do the job well enough for you. A Google search for "free web site templates" will likely yield many more results.
With any templating system like that, I recommend not using it as copy-and-paste as they would expect. Reference the free content, sure, but use it more as inspiration for your own code rather than just dropping it in place without fully understanding what it's doing. Some templates can probably be streamlined more to be less image-heavy, some can have their style and markup more properly separated, etc.
You might try the YUI Grid Builder from Yahoo, with more information available here. There's also the 960 Grid System.
I'd like to create a technical wiki site and it requires the full use of HTML/CSS and maybe Javascript when editing a page. Is this something I can easily configure in MediaWiki? If not, is there any other wiki software that you'd recommend?
Thanks!
You can enable raw HTML support by setting $wgRawHtml = true; in your LocalSettings.php:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgRawHtml
However, as noted above this is rather insecure for a public site. (If locked down to registered usage only by known folks it's ok -- but you need to trust your users.)
There are some links on that manual page to extensions organized around letting you put specific known bits of HTML/JS in your output code as well, which may or may not fit your needs better.
Well, while MediaWiki itself does not support this, there are some extensions which allow at least HTML in a page. See for example this extension list. SecureHTML might so what you are looking for.
That said, I'd like to point out that allowing raw HTML rather defeats the purpose of a wiki:
it can and will mess up formatting and create weird problems (clashes between generated and user-provided HTML)
it makes it hard/impossible to convert the wiki to other formats (such as to print it)
it makes searching harder
it makes any kind of security impossible (think XSS)
This is doubly true for allowing Javascript.
So I'd like to ask why you need this. If you need special formatting that MediaWiki does not offer, consider using (or writing) an extension for this.
If you really need arbitrary HTML, a Wiki might not be the best tool for you. You should consider a CMS, or just put HTML files into Subversion.
So what are you trying to do?
Use nowiki tags. Docs can be found here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting
Currently I'm using DokuWiki to manage my apps/scripts documentation, some articles I write and stuff like that... I like DokuWiki very much, it's simple and powerful but it's still too much for the use I've given it in the last 1/2 years.
I need something else, something different...
I'm looking for a way to integrate the little things I like in DokuWiki into my own website without needing a script, like DokuWiki, with it's own admin page. The website itself, my homepage, I like to code myself most of the things so it becomes exactly what I want. However, somethings I don't have much time for, that is why I'm using DokuWiki.
I want to ditch DokuWiki and scripts like these because I don't even use half of their capabilities. A wiki is a platform where people join their efforts and collaborate together to write stuff, it also has a revision system. These are two very important aspects about wikis that I don't care about for my own. I'm the only one writing stuff there and I don't care about revisions, never needed them.
What I like about DokuWiki is that I can point my browser to any URL within the wiki domain and create a page from there if it doesn't exist. I also like DokuWiki's syntax very much but sometimes it's very limited and I can't do what I want. The way you link between namespaces and such is also very nice. Too finish, a media/file manager is also very handy. These are probably the most important aspects for me in DokuWiki.
Basically, I'm looking for something, maybe a script, that would allow me to do the stuff I described above in a way I could integrate into my own website without needing a special administration area.
Does anyone know about such thing or I'm better off coding my own since my requirements are not that tricky to begin with, I just didn't want to have the extra work...
Or maybe any other suggestions?
Maybe you'll want to have a look at something like TiddlyWiki, which is a single-file wiki, that you can even put on a USB stick.
I chose xwiki over dokuwiki.
Another simple wiki is the one included with fogbugz. It is hosted for free for up to 2 users and might suit your project.
I may be off but very simple wiki with no administration and no users is LionWiki. I don't know how easy it's gonna be to integrate it into your website.
It's just one file and does not use database (like DokuWiki).
It does not have a lot of features though. It also uses a different syntax from that of DokuWiki.