I can sympathize with this. Our company bought a Forums package for our
site. Written entirely in fusebox, its a great package and we've never had
any problems, but when it came time to go through everything and familiarize
our developers with the code, it was an exercise in futility. It seems that
no page actually has any native code in it, the whole thing is made up of
cfincludes, referencing other templates. IT just seems a little bit on the
ridiculous side to write 300 odd 1k templates and cfinclude them in every
single page. It was also a nightmare when we had to inventory all our code
and queries and such. I wasted about a week trying to document everything
before I finally gave up.
-----Original Message-----
From: C Frederic Valone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:12 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Fusebox
Just to insert my two cents worth,
I inherited a site that I have now see was supposed to follow the fusebox
methodology. It has been a nightmare trying to figure out what they were
trying to do.
I may be wrong but it seems to me that too have an include on the index page
point to an action file that simply points to a display file was not the
proper implementation.
Just from looking the fusebox docs over once I see that what I would think
is the proper implementation of this would be more like this
1)an include on the index page that points to an action file that does and
action
2)an include on the index page below the action file that points to a query
file
3)an include on the index page below the query file that points to a display
file that may show the results returned based on the action and query file.
Am I correct in this?
I will admit that the methodology is a good thing to have to structure code
and make it easier for a new programmer to come in and see what is going on.
However in this case the documentation was nearly nonexistant and the fact
that some of the includes stayed within the directory structure and others
did not made this application
extremely hard to follow.
I am not the only programmer here that felt the same way about this
application. I am not saying that the methodology is wrong...quite the
contrary it seems to be simple and expandable. I am saying that no matter
what methodolgy someone uses, the results you get will depend on how well
you understand what the methodology is doing, how
well you document your work and how closely you follow the specs of the
methodology.
Thanks
Frederic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
