Now why would they go and do a thing like that? :-) Actually the core files are all CFC based so of course they are going to bring the syntax into the 2000's
http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=documentation.WhatsNewInFusebox5 You can use invoke and instantiate to call a cfc method and it works quite nicely. J.J. On 6/17/07, Dwayne Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, what about invoking functions from within the circuit.xmlfile. Again, > I am thinking about upgrading the framework that I use (a > modified fusebox framework). > > FB5 looks good but I wanted to move away from the "act_add_member.cfm" > and "qry_list_member.cfm" methodology which seperates database calls to the > same entity into two files; to a methodology that puts all "member" database > request in one file with dmany functions. In other words, a "member" cfc > file. I am concerned that fusebox does not support nor leverage the value > of .cfc objects. > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "J.J. Merrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:32:05 -0500 > > > > >Since Fusebox 4.1 and the incorporation of the total rewrite it has been > a > >priority to make all new releases of FB be backwards compatible. > Essentially > >anything that runs in 5 is going to work in 5.5 and 6.0. > > > >I would say start to dive in now since there isn't going to be such a > large > >rewrite in the future where you are going to have to learn a bunch of new > >things. The changes like we saw in 3 > 4.1 are not going to happen in a > >future release for a very very long time. > > > >J.J. M > > > > > >On 6/16/07, Dwayne Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I stopped using fusebox once FB3 was implement. It just got a little > to > >> complex for me. However I stuck with the basic concepts of fuses and > >> circuites. My circuit files are still basically one big cfswitch / > cfcase > >> tag. > >> > >> I am considering moveing to FB5. It seems attractive becuase the > Fusebox > >> Framework appears to be blackbox and it seems that I don't need to > ticker > >> with any non-value added details. > >> > >> I am also attracted to the concept of converting my cfswitch structure > to > >> a nice circuit.xml file. Furthermore the dot notation for the > fuseaction > >> request is very appealing; now my "index.cfm?action= > >> browseFirm&perform=showService List" can be replaced with "index.cfm > ?fuseacti > >> on=browseFirm. showServiceList" Cool. > >> > >> Basically I like alot about th FB5 format but now there's talk about > FB6 > >> or FBMX. Should I wait? > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Deploy Web Applications Quickly across the enterprise with ColdFusion MX7 & Flex 2 Free Trial http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:281409 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
