John Allred wrote:
> I'm not sure, but you may be over-thinking this. Tony's application is
> simple enough without Fusebox. Coding it in that methodology, believe it
> or not, would make it even easier for you to modify or troubleshoot,
> even with no prior exposure to Fusebox.
Based on what empirical evidence? I've looked over Fusebox and I don't
particularly think that the program flow is logical at all. Nor easier to
implement.
I will say that this is based on a cursory examination of fusebox.
> If he breaks it out in a consistent manner, the files will be
> shorter, and the program flow will be more logical and easier to follow.
And it will cure male pattern baldness. Check with your physician before
use.
I'm not trying to be argumentative but this is an assumption is it not? I'm
not trying to cast any dispersions on Tony's coding style either but
language like yours does tend to sound more like marketing and less like
facts.
Tony did you consult your current user base before making this move? And if
people don't want to use fusebox will you still have the older codebase
available for download?
--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Voltaire
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.pixelgeek.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
