Now I agree that we can all do what we want, but there is such a thing as
"fusebox compliant". This term offers to developers what we need to
most...some kind of standardization. I am not saying fusebox should be
called a standard or even a methodology...but it is an architecture...one
that lends itself to a kind of communications that is often missing between
developers and non-developers alike. If at a minimum, you use the naming
conventions and structures for directories, I can pick up anything you do
and adapt it to what I am doing and vice versa. I think, of all the terms I
don't agree with (and there are a few)...I think "fusebox compliant" is one
of the few appropriate ones. If something is "fusebox compliant", I should
be able to look at any forum or even the Fusebox book and know exactly what
to expect...and isn't that the whole point?
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred T. Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 2:21 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: Re: directory structure
No such thing as "fusebox complient". :) This isn't microsoft, no "made
for windows blah blah" that you have to apply for to get. The whole thing
with fusebox is use what works for you and what makes your job as a
developer easier. If you want to throw everything in one directory per fuse
do that, if your like me and you like the added organization of having
seperate /blocks, /actions, /queries folders do that instead. If you like
it when your cfcase statements only have cfincludes, that's fine too.
You spend too much time on worrying about things that really have no
good/bad effect on your development, then you won't be spending that time
developing.
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Higgins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: directory structure
> I made a large project with the original specifications of fusebox like a
> half year ago. I looked at Hal Helms www.halhelms.com site at his nested
> fusebox architecture. I like it very much. The original one had the
correct
> concept but did not implement it correctly like Hal's. Now I want to do my
> entire app over again . . . (Wanting to be punished? I am a sick bastard!)
>
> What is the standard for the directory structure of a fusebox
application?
> >
> > It seems to be:
> >
> > HOME APP ROOT
> > CIRCUIT 1
> > CIRCUIT 2
> > CIRCUIT 3
> > CIRCUIT 4
> >
> > I can make the above work if it is best practice to do this.
> >
> > I'm just curious if this would be "fusebox complient":
> >
> > HOME APP ROOT
> > CIRCUIT 1
> > CIRCUIT1a
> > CIRCUIT1b
> > CIRCUIT 2
> > CIRCUIT 3
> > CIRCUIT3a
> > CIRCUIT 4
> >
> > I'm just wondering which would be considered "best practice".
> > How deep should the directory stucture go and/or does it matter?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Phil Spitler (Vice President)
> > Web Hut Design, Inc.
> > c 704-451-1324
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
