>From our standpoint the use of the Switch concept in Fusebox is pretty much a visual one. It becomes very intuitive to drop-in new app features by placing the new code at the right place in the switch. This is still of course rooted in procedural concepts.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt Webapper Services LLC Web Site http://www.webapper.com Blog http://www.webapper.net Webapper <Web Application Specialists> -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:19 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CFCs - get'ers Vs. return object > Then of course, there's cfinclude... ASP has no means of dynamically > including content, which is a big advantage in cf, but in most cases I > don't > see cfincludes taking advantage of the fact that the template attribute is > dynamic. I see a lot of the FuseBox <cfswitch> method... > > <cfswitch expression="#fusebox.fuseaction#"> > <cfcase value="blah"> > <cfinclude template="blah.cfm"> > </cfcase> > <cfcase value="foo"> > <cfinclude template="foo.cfm"> > </cfcase> > <cfcase value="bar"> > <cfinclude template="bar.cfm"> > </cfcase> > </cfswitch> I've been wondering recently why Fusebox uses a cfswitch at all rather than simply using a file structure. To me surely fuseaction=accounts.editdetails could map to something like /accounts/editdetails/index.cfm without the need for any cfswitch. So the fuseactions and the fusebox (the cfswitch) would effectively be one and the same. This is more like what you do, isn't it Isaac? I'm sure they have a good reason. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
