Makes sense, but what is the correct way? What should a PURE
fusecoder do?
No idea about a *pure* fusecoder, but...
Depends what you're trying to do. If it's just a single qry fuse or
similar then you could set up a separate include directory, point to
it in the fbx_Settings.cfm file (e.g.
Right. The concensus is then, that we have a globals directory. That is the
way I have been going anyway but just wanted to check out the combined brain
power of this list
;-)
-Original Message-
From: Tim Blair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 09:27
To: [EMAIL
Right. The concensus is then, that we have a globals
directory. That is the way I have been going anyway but just
wanted to check out the combined brain power of this list
I would suggest that this isn't a good idea. The whole point of fusebox is
that you can effectively drag and drop
True, I hadn't thought of that. If I wish to drag my circuit to another
application then it will fail because of the globals being missing.
This is why I asked the question in the first place. Thanks for your
valuable input I will rethink my strategy. Although I am currently wondering
if there
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 10:13
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
cfmodule template=...whatever the request.self is...
checkloggedin=#session.user# etc...
Half asleep... Should read:
cfmodule template=...whatever the request.self
will not impact other fuses.
Adam
-Original Message-
From: Ellwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 10:25
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
True, I hadn't thought of that. If I wish to drag my circuit to another
application
aarrr my brain's fused
I thought fusebox was meant to be simple ;0)
- Original Message -
From: Adam Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
I've actually found that globals
guess hehe :¬)
/me awaits the flames
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Damian Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 10:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
aarrr my brain's fused
I thought fusebox was meant to be simple ;0
It does have some good ideas
But boy is it over kill
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Pope [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 11:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
I'm curious just how many people on this list use fusebox
11:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
I'm curious just how many people on this list use fusebox ?
Personally I hate the thing, I like the ideas involved and but I prefer to
adapt the methodology to my own code in my own way. I'm not having a go at
fusebox
or others)
3) Easily Maintainable
4) Working!!! (very important!)
Just my 2p!
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Pope [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 11:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
I'm curious just how many
CF initially.
Just being curious I guess hehe :¬)
/me awaits the flames
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Damian Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 10:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
aarrr my
of methodologies.
Confession time: I also pick the choice bits and ignore some of the more
arcane stuff!
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Pope
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
I'm curious just
being curious I guess hehe :¬)
/me awaits the flames
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: Damian Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 10:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
aarrr my brain's fused
I thought fusebox
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] MVC/Methodologies WAS RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders
on the list?
I think the good thing is that it shows all the levels of the methodology
and how you can implement its in a simple or complex form depending on the
scale of the project .. and you can say 'hey I wanna get off
: Friday, October 24, 2003 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] MVC/Methodologies WAS RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders
on the list?
PS Fusebox people smell like tramps wee.. dammit its started!
Well that's what happens if you stay in a box all day, you start smelling.
Ask David Blaine.
*duck
]
Sent: 24 October 2003 11:24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
It does have some good ideas
But boy is it over kill
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Pope [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 11:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
:17
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] where to now WAS MVC/Methodologies WAS RE: [
cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
On a more serious note, whatever the preferences it does seem
that everyone
is agreed with the fact that methodologies are a good idea. I'm interested
to know
The thing is, that we all use some form of methodology based on CF...
Try imagine what would happen if there was no web framework software to
build around (and yes I do realise that this happened about 10 years ago).
We have n-tier models of applications and we have different layers that we
Even before (if ever) we reach the nirvana of an obviously best practice,
including the scalability and 'get off at any floor' factors, there is
another social factor at work besides 'let's rip it off'.
That is the attempt to 'make programming simple'. It isn't, and never
will be, period.
Fusebox evangelists are control freaks who just like the sound of their own
voice. Take what you want from the fusebox method and ditch what looks
stupid (it probably is). Just make sure you do something methodical and make
some sort of documentation of the structure.
Paolo
--
** Archive:
all about working with the same mindset.
Adam
-Original Message-
From: Paolo Piponi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 15:33
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
Fusebox evangelists are control freaks who just like the sound
2003 15:42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
Erm,
And there I was thinking it had more to do with the fact that other
developers using fusebox would be able to contribute to your
development
process and would be working with a similar mindset.
Why
Fusebox is a fantastic methodology. It makes developing sites quick and
almost painless. BUT!!! Should I be careful of falling into the INCLUDE
trap. Its great to have includes that you can code once and use anywhere. In
fusebox this can be a problem if you have several circuits that share one of
: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:13 PM
Subject: [ cf-dev ] Any fusecoders on the list?
Fusebox is a fantastic methodology. It makes developing sites quick and
almost painless. BUT!!! Should I be careful of falling into the INCLUDE
trap. Its great to have includes that you can code once and use anywhere
25 matches
Mail list logo
