Once you understand the basic's it's really not very "complex". It
does appear that way if you just open a template and look at the code
without knowing what it does or why. It's similar to creating the
whole view with DOM, although it's all done on the server-side with
CFML code. So for the most part you only have to know a small handful
of functions and how to use them:
html.new() -- create new html element
html.attribute() -- set an html element's attribute
html.childAdd() -- add a child-node to an html element
html.show() -- converts the created html elements into a string for
display
html.style() -- set an in-line style element on a given html element
-- I generally recommend using the html element's class & id instead
and creating an associated css sheet, but this is available
there are of course a large number of additional functions to make
specific tasks easier, such as html.childFindById() which is
equivalent of js document.getElementById() and short-cut functions
like html.linkNew and html.imageNew for creating specific types of
html elements.
This particular approach was designed in the onTap framework to allow
plugin applications with the ability to modify the layout / view
without modifying any of the existing code of the original
application. Afaik this hasn't been the objective of Fusebox, although
it's likely not out of the question. Given that Fusebox 3 layouts and
the more robust views in Fusebox 4 are still designed to deal with
larger blocks of display rather than handling individual html elements
and attributes (in an xml/dom-esque manner), I'm apt to think that it
would be difficult to make Fusebox do the same thing without co-opting
the onTap libraries (which anybody could do if they wanted -- they're
open source).
I will say that I don't feel the html libraries are a beginner's tool.
They're also not required for the framework to function -- there is a
much simpler method of creating nested layouts built into the
framework, I just don't use it for my own development because as with
Fusebox it doesn't provide me with the ability to do what I wanted
with my plugin applications.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
> That's why Fusebox was option 2. ; ) Once you get your
> head around
> it, lots of things are enormously easier, and layouts are
> one. But
> it's definitely not a simple framework to jump into. That
> being said,
> I would recommend giving it a chance, because in the long
> run,
> anything you can do to make things simpler and more
> consistent will
> pay large dividends.
> Isaac will kill me, but if you want to see an amazingly
> confusing way
> to assemble layouts, check out the onTap framework.
> Definitely more
> complex and feature rich than Fusebox, but aimed at two
> slightly
> different audiences.
> cheers,
> barneyb
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:02:53 -0400, Phillip Perry
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 4:56 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: Re: application.cfm and headers
>>
>> or perhaps use something like Fusebox
>>
>> I downloaded fusebox the other day to see what it was
>> about and my head
>> almost exploded with confusion :)
>>
>> Thanks though
>>
>>
> --
> Barney Boisvert
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 360.319.6145
> http://www.barneyb.com/blog/
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
