Well, there's the dilemma: It seems FB3 is basically incompatible with MVC, so it's either MVC, FB3, or MVC/FB4. :-/
At this point, it seems equally painful to change the architecture (to non-MVC) as it is to migrate to FB4. :x Thanks, Jamie On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:00:22 +0100, in cf-talk you wrote: >Hi > >While it may not be much work to convert from FB3 to FB4 I would not >encourage this mid project also is FB4 actually out of Beta? > >Thanks > >Kola > >>> >>> In a nutshell, don't waste time with FuseQ. It was a cool concept >that >>> matured into FB4. >>> http://beta.fusebox.org/. >>> >>> Jeremy Ridout >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jamie Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:12 AM >>> To: CF-Talk >>> Subject: Re: FuseQ Documentation? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:53:17 -0400, in cf-talk you wrote: >>> >>> >The architecture is different, so if you want to link you do have to >>> >rewrite. Depending on whether you separated the architecture out of >>> your >>> >fuses, you might or might not have to rewrite your fuses, but you >will >>> have >>> >to rewrite your switches. >>> >>> The reason I wanted to know about FuseQ is I've got a FB3 site under >>> development, and it's done in the MVC sort of way, with a Model, >View, >>> and Controller directory, and things are separated that way. If I try >>> to keep it pretty strictly MVC, where circuits can't call other >>> circuits directly, but by way of the Controller, I run into recursive >>> <cfmodule> calls, which is miserable in stock FB3. This is what I >>> thought FuseQ was made for. >>> >>> Our architect is quite reluctant to convert from FB3 to FB4 (which I >>> understand), but would probably allow FuseQ. >>> >>> When I had two cfmodules in a row, in a switch, FuseQ worked >>> brilliantly, with its AddToQ() function. However, when I got to >>> *recursive* calls, it started dying. Can somebody tell me if there is >>> a solution to that problem using FuseQ (there must be!)? Does it have >>> to do with the StartOfQ() function (which I can't find documentation >>> for)? >>> >>> I realize this is nobody's problem but my own, but the project is >>> suffering, and there's got to be a way to do this that won't require >>> me to teach myself and the entire team FB4, and do a big rewrite. It >>> seems FuseQ is the answer (even though it's unsupported), and I bet >>> there's an easy way to do it, but I'm not finding the answer. Anybody >>> have it? :O >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jamie >>> >>> >If your fuses will stay the same moving from FB3 to FuseQ, then they >>> will >>> >stay the same moving from FB3 to FB4. Again, you will rewrite your >>> >switches. >>> > >>> >The bigger problem will be breaking out of the Nested Layout model. >FB4 >>> >doesn't support Nested Layouts natively (and a good thing too). I >wrote >>> a >>> >plugin which will support Nested Layouts for moving old apps in,but >it >>> still >>> >involves a bit of a rewrite. While FuseQ does support Nested >Layouts, >>> it >>> >also gives you the same control with layouts as FB4 >(contentvariables), >>> the >>> >ability to capture discrete bits of display into variables and then >>> output >>> >them specifically in their own layout. >>> > >>> >See my presentation from CFUN03 on my site for more info. >>> >http://www.shayna.com go to the presentations area. >>> > >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:43 AM >>> >To: CF-Talk >>> >Subject: RE: FuseQ Documentation? >>> > >>> > >>> >Sandy >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> So why rewrite the application in FuseQ? FuseQ will not be >supported >>> >>> from >>> >>> this point forward as all of it is now available in Fusebox 4. >If >>> >you >>> >>> are >>> >>> going to rewrite your application from FB3 to something anyways >(and >>> >>> believe >>> >>> me to take advantage of content variables and the ability to link >>> >>> fuseactions together you do have to do a rewrite), >>> > >>> > >>> >I wasn't aware that to take advantage of the chaining fuseactions >>> >together >>> >It would involve a lot more of a re-write. I wrongly had the >impression >>> >from what little I have read on FuseQ that you could plug in the >core >>> >file and start chaining fuseaction together. >>> > >>> > >>> > why not just do it in >>> >>> FB4? If you have MX a stable core is available now at >>> >beta.fusebox.org. >>> >>> If >>> >>> you have 5, go ahead and play with FuseQ, but know you will move >it >>> >to >>> >>> FB4 >>> >>> as soon as the 5 core becomes available. >>> > >>> >Maybe. We'll see. >>> >Thanks anyway. >>> > >>> >Kola >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
