You're right, I've completely avoided MVC in FB3. It can work, but whew, that's just too much...
FB4 is sooo close to final release, I don't think that you're going to have much of an issue getting started now (again, aside from the acknowledged documentation deficiencies). It's been several days since the last call for bugs and based on the ongoing discussions over there, the code is frozen with regards to enhancements (what NDA?). If there is a change, it will be a very minor core file change which shouldn't effect your own code at all and obtaining the update is as simple as dropping in the new corefiles. Im well on my way with using FB4 in one project will no issues at all and from here on out, all new projects are FB4. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: Jamie Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 9:11 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: FuseQ Documentation? 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 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
