comparison chart which really is just intended to compare the
different frameworks' requirements.
Fusebox 3 was completely agnostic to both the cfapplication tag and
the application.cfm -- it didn't care whether either was used.
Fusebox 4 now requires the cfapplication tag but doesn't care about
the application.cfm template.
Mach-ii applications probably ought to have an application.cfm to hold
the required cfapplication tag.
The onTap framework requires an application.cfm but is agnostic about
the cfapplication tag and goes a bit futher to automatically execute
your own custom application stage code for you, so you don't have to
edit any of the framework's templates to execute code in the
application stage.
Not all of the extensions for the onTap framework are agnostic about
the cfapplication tag however, as it's required by the Members onTap
login and member management plugin which in turn is required by the
Roles onTap roles-based security plugin and the upcoming Forums onTap
plugin application.
> Using CF, it is not a very good idea NOT to have an
> Application.cfm, as
> you can't prevent CF from executing the nearest one it can
> find. If you
> don't want to use it, just have one with nothing (well, at
> least a
> return) in it in the root folder of your application.
> Pascal
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 03 July 2004 00:39
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: RE: white-space - is this a big issue?
>>
>> - FB4 requries a CFAPPLICATION tag, and uses application
>> variables,
> but
>> doesn't require a Application.cfm (CFAPPLICATION is
>> generally better
>> placed
>> in index.cfm)
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
