Nope. Easier to debug. If the error is in a parsed file, its in your xml. Otherwise, since all other FB fuses are <cfincluded>, any errors in them show up as usual.
You can always look at the parsed files, they are located in the parsed directory and named as circuit.fuseaction.cfm Sandra Clark ============================== http://www.shayna.com Training in Cascading Style Sheets and Accessibility -----Original Message----- From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:42 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Framework suggestions I would imagine this is a pain to debug, because any errors will be in the compiled pages (which u can't view I presume if they are compiled to memory) not in the code you actually wrote. -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Strutz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 July 2006 04:05 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Framework suggestions XML is certainly not easier for CF developers to use, but it does accomplish a few important things. First, it's not language specific. This is the weakest point because not many people care whether or not they can move their controller layer between different languages, but it sounds nice. Second, it forces you to watch how much logic you put into your circuits & fuses. A lot of people were shortcutting and taking advantage of the circuits, putting code like cfqueries in there, but the limited XML syntax forces you to stand back and think about your application. Third, it's easier to parse. I mentioned yesterday in this thread that the XML is parsed into plain cfml files, but it's not just a translation of cfif, cfinclude, cfset, etc. There are a few compiler directives, specifically the "do" action, which compiles and includes inline the contents of another fuseaction. This is what gives a lot of the performance benifits over FB 3. Instead of cfmodule or cfinclude, the code is on the same parsed file. So the syntax isn't simpler or easier, but the outcome is probably worth it. -nathan strutz http://www.dopefly.com/ On 7/2/06, Claude Schneegans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>The FB5 core is basically a > >>compiler that transforms the XML into vanilla CFML. > > OK, but what's the big idea? > Is XML any simpler or easier to use than CFML? > > -- > _______________________________________ > REUSE CODE! Use custom tags; > See http://www.contentbox.com/claude/customtags/tagstore.cfm > (Please send any spam to this address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Thanks. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:245290 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
