I apologize in advance for the long post, but I'd appreciate it if some of
you more experienced fuseboxers would take a look at it, as I'd really value
your comments.
I'm currently working on a site using frames and a kind of dot notation. To
be honest, I've been reading the emails, but I never was able to figure out
exactly what the recommended method of implementing a dot notation was, so I
just created my own. It may be like Hal's or Nat's, or it may be totally
different. I have a feeling that it might be quite different, and might not
be the best way to do it, but it's working for me. Here's a summary of what
I'm doing:
1. All links, in every circuit app, point back to the index.cfm file in the
root directory (this of course includes all frame sources).
2. That index.cfm file strips off the first element of the fuseaction (using
"." as a delimiter), and then cfincludes the index file found in that
circuit app directory, passing it the remainder of the fuseaction.
3. If there are more levels of nesting, the above continues, until the
fuseaction is pared down to a single list item, which now represents the
actual fuseaction.
For example, to call the edit fuseaction in the client circuit app, which is
in the admin circuit app, I'd use:
fa=admin.client.edit
This will end up cfincluding three index files (one in the root, one in the
/admin directory, and one in the /admin/client directory). I realize that
that might be creating extra overhead, but I think it's minimal, and it
allows me to really jump around. For example, while I'm in the client
circuit app, I want to display a list of contacts in a frame. Well, all of
the code to maintain contact info is actually in the contact circuit app.
With my method that doesn't matter - I just make my frame source
index.cfm?fa=admin.contact.showList, and it works! I can have multiple
frames displayed, with each one being populated by a different circuit app.
I am also using cfbodycontent to create standard html header and footer
code. I simply pass in a parameter called attributes.isFrameSet whenever my
fuseaction is producing a frameset (rather than the frame's content), and my
headers and footers are created accordingly (i.e., no <body> tags for
framesets).
I haven't encountered any problems using this method with frames. I just
make sure that I load each frame by calling the root index.cfm file and it
always works. As a side note, I use exclusively cfinclude (no cfmodule),
with the occasional cflocation.
I'd be really interested in hearing what some of you long-time fuseboxers
think of this approach. As I mentioned, I pretty much came up with it on my
own after reading a lot of stuff from Steve, Nat and Hal (and I'm sure many
others whose names escape me). Does this sound like a good approach? Do
you see any problems with it?
Thanks in advance for your comments. And thanks to everyone who keeps this
community alive and vibrant,
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 2:02 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: FuseBox 3.0 dot notation concepts and frames.
After seeing Nats presentation on the dot notation idea for the new FuseBox
standard, I have one issue that I cant quite figure out. How does this work
with frames?
If my root index page loads my frameset, I cant call back to it to load a
circuit app because it will break me out of my frameset. Has this been
addressed yet?
I really want to start using the dot notation method and the xfa's but I
have to have my frames!!
Russ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
