Well I am glad that you responded. I know there are other methodologies out there working for people, and I still say show me a better one and I will jump right on board.
As to your comment about url variables and search engines, there is a udf/custom tag called ses variables that will generate search engine safe variables. I have also written a UDF that allows you to encrypt your query string, and be search engine safe. You can find info on the SES stuff on the fusebox.org site under resources, and you can get my urlEncrypt function from my home page http://loathe.mine.nu. I have a more updated one that a gentleman named Lee Borkman added a hash/checksum to if your interested. Tim Heald ACP/CCFD Application Development www.schoollink.net -----Original Message----- From: Jennifer Larkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:07 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Fusebox (was: I like CFMX) At 08:52 PM 4/29/02 -0700, you wrote: > > Well, hi to you too Steve! What did they do, ring the alarm bell at > > fusebox.org? > > >Now that's funny! You two have been cracking me up for hours. And for the record, Matt's being much less negative today than he is in the BACFUG list. Must be the beer. But seriously, I've gone through the documentation for FuseBox 2 and FuseBox 3. I didn't see anything that would help me. That's not to say that it wouldn't help other people. While some of the concepts have value, they have more value if I tailor them to an implementation more appropriate to the specific site I'm coding. In my opinion, it goes a little too far trying to fix some simple problems. If I can make my code readable, understandable, reusable, and portable while avoiding some of the problematic things about FuseBox, that's what I'm going to do. One thing that I think is problematic is the excessive use of URL variables. I don't see how putting fuseaction=showhelpform in a url gives me any advantage over having a showhelpform.cfm page to call in the URL. Since we all know how URL variable friendly search engines can be, it gives me an advantage to not use them. (And yes, I know about cgi.query_string; unfortunately, it isn't available on some CF implementations and it's still sometimes rejected by search engines.) Of course, I wouldn't actually have a showhelpform.cfm page in one of my applications, because that isn't something that the site user needs to know. I would instead have a help.cfm page that would detect if the help form has been submitted and call files accordingly. The thing that people need to understand is that a single solution doesn't solve every problem. You need to tailor solutions to problems in order to get the greatest advantage. Standards are definitely a good thing. However, there are an infinite number of things to be addressed by web applications, some of them contradictory, and a single standard can not address all of them. Plus, I've seen some pretty poor implementations of fusebox. Of course, list lurker and my ex-coworker Austin knows, we wanted to choke that programmer long before he decided to use FuseBox (which he obviously didn't understand). Am I still the official Dave Watts groupie? Now available in a San Francisco Bay Area near you! http://www.blivit.org/mr_urc/index.cfm http://www.blivit.org/mr_urc/resume.cfm ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
