Adding order to your world is the best reason I can think of to use it. It
actually simplifies things. Some of the code that implements the magic may
make you scratch your head a bit, but that's all abstracted so you don't
have to worry about it, and having drag and drop circuits PLUS inheritance
PLUS integrated exception handling--well, of course you don't have to have
these things, but they sure make for cleaner code that's more fun to write.
It's a geek thing--either it appeals to you or not.
Hal Helms
Team Allaire
[ See www.halhelms.com <http://www.halhelms.com> for info on training
classes ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Strange Tactics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:08 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
Well its not a programatic reason but I use xfb because I love the
organization, looking at a site from its root directory I like to have
code, graphics, scripts etc all in their places (separate dirs). When I dig
into the site to fix/add one thing or another my choices are clear and
navigating to a point in the site at the file level is easy. Bear in mind
that I have all my circuits in a /circuits dir for more separation, xfb
allowed me to do that. Its a simplistic reason but xfb adds order to my
world. Self contained circuits are also practically drag and drop from one
site to the next, I love that too. To be fair I haven't really explored the
base Fusebox to see if these are legitimate reasons but once I grasped xfb I
felt that it made sense.
Shane Johnson
www.strangetactics.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Coldfusion developer
Fusebox compliant (XFB)
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 6:57 AM
To: Fusebox
Subject: Re: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
The Attributes scope solves 3 problems with utter simplicity.
1) Make form, url, and attributes into a single scope so switching
between the scopes doesn't change code
2) They allow for search engine safe urls without changing code
3) They allow for calling an index.cfm as a cfmodule (simple nesting)
I have to be honest here... I'm not convinced of the nested Fuseboxes.
I've tried it a few times now just to play around with them and I find
that it adds a huge layer of complexity to the ultra simple concept of
Fusebox. I still have not heard an argument for what problem nesting
Fuseboxes actually solves. Sure the concept is cool, but I'm just not
seeing the need for it.
Can anyone show us a real life example of where nested Fusebox solved
something that couldn't be done with a simple cfmodule call to an
index.cfm file? I'd be happy to show a couple real life examples of
simple cfmodule call to an index.cfm file.
Steve Nelson
Try my CFML code tester for free!
http://www.secretagents.com/tools/stomp/
(804) 825-6093
Hal Helms wrote:
>
> The reason I put XFAs in the attribs scope is that I was trying to be
> consistent with the whole FormURL2Attributes logic, the argument being
that
> we should have a unified scope. So now, you're going to have some vars
that
> are purely local and some that are attributes? These attributes are
starting
> to feel like an appendix--having had a purpose at one time, but now just
> hanging around.
>
> When do I get to see my little um...err...clone/baby?
>
> Hal Helms
> Team Allaire
> [ See www.halhelms.com <http://www.halhelms.com> for info on training
> classes ]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nat Papovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:13 AM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
>
> What do XFBs have to do with the attribs scope? I never put them in the
> attribs scope myself, only the local scope (and not as a structure as the
> original XFB outline mentions), and I haven't gotten a ticket yet...
>
> NAT
>
> p.s. The creation (birth?) of Mini Hal is coming along nicely.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hal Helms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:54 PM
> > To: Fusebox
> > Subject: RE: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Part of the cost is having to prefix everything with "attributes." When
> > dealing with XFAs, etc, this gets to be a significant amount of
> > time. But I
> > agree with you about the search-engine friendly URLs. That's a
> > nice feature.
> > Score one for FormURL2Attributes.
> >
> > Hal Helms
> > Team Allaire
> > [ See www.halhelms.com <http://www.halhelms.com> for info on training
> > classes ]
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Quarto-vonTivadar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 12:01 AM
> > To: Fusebox
> > Subject: Re: Musings on Attributes (was Best Practices...)
> >
> >
> >
> > > I agree--that's the only thing that's really nice about having
> > it. Again,
> > I
> > > just wonder if the cost is worth it.
> > >
> >
> >
> > somehow I missed the originating comment that must have started this.
Has
> > someone done a cost analysis to see exactly how much we are really
paying
> > for the convenience?
> >
> > (as an aside, if the need for ATTRIBUTES is somewhat moot due to non FB
> > custom tag calls, and therefore only FORM and URL are in play,
> > then perhaps
> > we should need a URL2FORM.cfm or vice-versa tag. I happen to like the
> > ability to have search-engine friendly URLs)
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
